Twitter You Tube Facebook Autobodynews Linked In

Wednesday, 08 January 2020 17:24

Prevalence of Vehicle Scanning – and Insurers’ Willingness to Pay for it – Have Risen

The industry’s adoption of vehicle scanning as an indispensable part of the repair process can be seen in the results of the “Who Pays for What” surveys conducted for several years by Collision Advice and CRASH Network.

In the survey conducted this past fall, 11% of shops said they might skip a post-repair scan because no dash lights are lit – not a legitimate reason – but in the same survey in 2016, nearly half of all shops (44%) said that was a reason they might skip the scan. Likewise, three years ago, about 1 in 5 shops said they didn't perform scans because they don't have the tools necessary to perform the scans. In the latest survey, 2% used that as an excuse.


Payment practices have evolved as well. Back in 2016, a “Who Pays” survey found more than 30% of all shops said that one of the reasons they didn't perform a post-repair vehicle scan was that insurers didn't pay them for the procedure. Three years later, just 12% of shops say a lack of insurer payment is one of the reasons they might not perform a vehicle scan. More than 97% of shops now say they are at least negotiating to be paid for vehicle scans, and 88% say they are being paid regularly when they do.


“There are very few shops not seeking to be paid, particularly for post-repair scanning.” said industry trainer and consultant Mike Anderson of Collision Advice. “This is different from some of the other 'not-included' procedures where a significant percentage of shops aren’t getting paid because they’re not seeking to be paid. But the industry also needs to keep in mind that an insurer refusing to pay for a scan does not remove a shop’s liability for not conducting one."


The first of the four 2019 “Who Pays for What?” surveys, which focuses on “not-included” refinish operations, is open now through the end of January at:


To find the results of previous survey, please visit

Read 225 times