He said the bill has little to do with total losses. “It has everything to do with whether a car gets branded with a title. “If you have to put safe titles on the cars, you would be putting a lot of unsafe vehicles on the road. Most people don’t understand. It’s not a body shop issue, it’s not an insurance issue. It’s a titling issue,” said Compan. He said they have reached out to body shops on numerous occasions to discuss the bill.
Compan said the next step is to have the minority leader ask the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to hold workshops about this issue. “It’s something that has to get fixed. It can’t stay the way it is,” he said.
They are also working toward asking for regulations to be implemented during the 2019 legislative session that Compan said will regulate the body shop industry, similar to how it is done in New York “...where they will have mandatory audits of body shops. We’re going to ask that they create a whole new bureaucracy that will be paid for by the body shop industry.” He said it will be an enforcing division to ensure body shops are repairing cars properly and “not charging too much for unneeded and unnecessary procedures.”
Compan encourages shops to come to the table and discuss next steps. “They are going to have to sit down and realize there is a problem here and by doing that we can come together,” he said. “What I see happening is not only are we going to fix this statutory language I think it’s going to add another layer of bureaucracy that the body shops aren’t going to want. I would advise them that they should sit down at the table now.”
Autobody News reached out to the Nevada Collision Industry Association (NCIA) about the bill and how it would affect both the body shop industry and consumers.
Tim Waldren, northern president of the NCIA, shared the following:
“I don’t think the legislators saw it as a consumer-friendly bill and it wasn’t. It [the bill] takes away options for consumers because most of them don’t want their vehicles totaled. The collision industry wants to see the law continue to be a pro-consumer law. The legislature meets every two years so we’ll be involved as necessary. It’s important to inform the legislature how new language could affect consumers.”
Matt Gondini, southern president of the NCIA, provided the following comments from the southern chapter and said that everything is voted on by board members:
“Assembly Bill 368 is not needed. The NCIA believes the current statute does a great job of declaring total losses with the appropriate titling as well. The NCIA disagrees with what the insurers said about fewer cars totaling now since the electronic exclusion was passed in 2011. If anything, we would bet more cars have been totaled and titled as such, especially in the last few years, than in 2011 or 2012. Only the DMV can tell us for sure, of course.