John Yoswick is a freelance automotive writer based in Portland, Oregon, who has been writing about the collision industry since 1988. He is the editor of the weekly CRASH Network (for a free 4-week trial subscription, visit www.CrashNetwork.com).
He can be contacted at email@example.com
One by one this past spring, a panel of repairers at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) voiced their concerns about the privacy of their shop’s estimating and other data, and expressed a desire to “opt out” of having that data compiled and reported on by the Big Three information providers.
Non-OEM versions of many more vehicle parts could be manufactured and available much sooner after a new vehicle model is introduced if backers of proposed changes to federal patent laws are successful.
State Farm’s PartsTrader program, the use of shops’ estimating and other data, and how one state regulator oversees auto insurers, were among the topics at a recent board meeting of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS).
Should repairers be held solely responsible if a repair process or part they choose fails—even if that process or part was chosen at the behest of an insurer?
As the discussion of how and whether the industry should develop some sort of formalized collision repair standards continues, Paul Gange brings a somewhat unique perspective on the topic.
A report at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) on the findings of a study into what consensus exists within the industry about the development and implementation of formalized repair standards led to as much discussion about the value and validity of the study as it did to discussion of standards themselves.
So much happens in the collision repair industry that it can be hard to keep up on everything. A few big stories get plenty of attention, but sometimes it’s the lesser-known stories that can have as big an impact on your business.
In response to ongoing efforts over six years by the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) to develop a set of formalized repair standards, four national repairer groups have jointly issued a statement calling the published automaker repair procedures the “official industry-recognized repair standards for collision repair.”
State and regional associations—that together represent more than 2,000 body shops—participated in the sixth annual “Affiliate Leadership Conference” organized by the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) and held near Chicago in mid-September.
What may have seemed to some at the most recent Collision Industry Conference (CIC) as a debate about esoteric computer jargon was actually a discussion about who gets access to all the information in a shop’s estimates.
It’s a common complaint among collision repairers: It’s not worth contacting the state insurance commissioner’s office because they don’t do anything about our complaints.
The skittishness among some in the industry about how formalized repair standards may be developed or implemented was evident during discussion at the most recent Collision Industry Conference (CIC).
From California to Massachusetts, the judicial system and lawmakers are tackling related to the auto insurance that pays for much of the work collision repairers do. The federal government is also considering the role it should play in regulating insurers as well.
The experiences of a number of shop owners around the country serve as a reminder to make sure you always understand the terms of any contract you are signing. Failure to read the fine print—or negotiate clauses for additional rights to end even something as seemingly innocuous as a software contract—have cost some shops tens of thousands of dollars.