Words, by which we live and die and conduct our business, have been sentimentally described as "pegs to hang ideas on," and "the thread on which we string our experiences." But one-time presidential contender Adlai Stevenson summed up the power of words as too often being "the great foes of reality." 

Strom

Some within the insurance and collision industries have pieced together words into terms that, defying reality, hide their true intent - or lack thereof. Following are a number of such terms - foes of the reality they are intended to present - that scream for exposure. 

Industry accepted standards

This term often used by insurers and repairers, as it serves their various purposes, is a classic of blather. The plain, unvarnished truth is that the collision industry has no "standards," let alone "accepted standards," let alone "industry accepted standards." CIC has for years been poking at establishing some form of industry standards. But how can standards be established for an industry that has maintained perfect Missouri mule exclusionism since its inception? CIC's lists of "best practices" are toothless and unenforceable, and will never be anything more than suggestive in nature.

Insurers have exploited repairers' disdain for constructive organization and governance. This industry has no standards because, other than some state organizations and theCCRE, its associations and societies are kept in constant turmoil by insurer interference in their inner workings. If the collision industry has any "standards," it is as these have been dictated by the insurance industry. As a good friend in the industry says, "Industry accepted standards refers to the so-called standards certain repairers presumably accept because they are too cowardly to stand up to the industry that shoves these so called standards down their throats." My sentiments exactly!

Functionally equivalent parts

Though "functional equivalency" is not a new concept, CAPA has lowered it to the depths of despair. Try your best to follow this line of BS (pardon, reasoning) compressed from one piece of CAPA literature; "We believe that the difference between a CAPA certified part and [OEM] part should be invisible to both the repairer and consumer." [CAPA first admits here that there IS a difference between their parts and OEM. Next, CAPA states,] "…parts certified by CAPA as 'functionally equivalent' to (OEM) are of 'like kind and quality' in all significant respects to the corresponding (OEM) parts they replace." [CAPA states here that their functionally equivalent CAPA parts are LKQ. Then, they state in the same breath,] "'Like kind and quality' is frequently defined to mean 'equal to' (OEM) in fit, quality, performance, form, and finish." [Finally, stated in this same propaganda statement,] "CAPA chose the term 'functionally equivalent' because, literally speaking, 'functionally equivalent' is a higher standard than 'like kind and quality' - the former entails equality ('equivalent') while the latter implies only similarity ('like').

Therefore, parts certified by CAPA under the 'functionally equivalent' standard are most certainly of 'like kind and quality' in all significant respects to the corresponding (OEM) parts they replace." It's only one more small stretch of CAPA's ego-infatuated imagination for them to state that CAPA-certified parts are as good as or better than OEM - which they do. Maybe "Functionally Equivalent" isn't such a bad term for CAPA to use in their quest to appear "equivalent to" OEM.

Following CAPA's logic, one might also agree that though airport toilet paper is narrow, as thin as air, shreds like confetti as you try futilely to remove it from its five-mile roll somewhere deep inside that vault-like stainless steel holder, and provides a barrier of questionable quality between your hand and the object of its affection, if CAPA considers their parts functionally equivalent to OEM, airport toilet paper must be considered functionally equivalent to the kind you use in your home (as long as you scrub thoroughly with lots of soap and water afterward).

According to a quality-minded collision tech, "Aftercrap parts kinda sorta resemble OEM, but there is absolutely zero proof that they perform each and every function performed by the OEM parts and perform those functions in the same way that OEM parts perform. Therefore, the aftercrap part does not fit the definition of equivalent.

"Dysfunctional parts do not become "functionally equivalent" just because someone with a vested interest in them deems them so. Maybe CAPA should term their parts "Functionally Dysfunctional Parts" (FDP).