Following my editorial last month, "Hornets don't like big sticks hitting their nests," I was contacted by six people concerned with my comments. For those who missed it, my column centered around data presented at October's Collision Industry Conference (CIC) in Las Vegas. The information presented hinted at the fact insurers were intentionally lowballing estimates to fatten their wallets. A non-CIC sanctioned press conference was set-up to discuss the matter with the mass media until the CIC body made a strong request to have it canceled. The concern was the data was not scientifically valid, and therefore, should not be presented beyond the industry until a more valid study was conducted. Organizers of the press conference conceded, not because they didn't trust the data, but because they rightfully wanted to adhere to the wishes of the CIC body.
The calls and e-mails I received were from people who basically felt the time is now to fight; that the data presented, while it may not be 100-percent ironclad, needs to be shown to the masses if we as an industry are going to stop insurer infiltration of the repair process.
"Honestly," wrote Wade Ebert, of American Auto Body in Springfield, Ill., "I'd never argue the 'scientific' nature of the CIC study. To do so would be foolish. However, to ignore the fact that such disparities exist is equally as foolish. The fact is the underestimation of repair costs as a pattern or practice is a fraud against the vehicle owner — whether insured or claimant — no matter who is writing the estimate."
Ebert and others also contended that my comments to tread lightly before attacking were proof that the insurers wield an all-too-powerful stick. "Despite my many years urging, few repairers (if any) have taken steps to understand their obligations to consumers as dictated by those outside of the industry," wrote Ebert. "We have been constantly turning in and choosing to sign agreements and keep secrets rather than to go out into the light of day so that these issues and methods may be understood and determined to be legitimate or not." I agree 100 percent.
As an industry it's our obligation to challenge the insurers when they've overstepped their boundaries. And it's obvious those boundaries are getting broader and broader and permeating all aspects of the repair process. The differences lie in strategies — how we attack those issues — as well as what we want the final outcome to be. If you want insurers to stop telling you how to perform a repair, you're probably going to make some headway because they don't know the repair process the way you do. If you are expecting insurers to leave your business alone entirely, that's going to be a tougher challenge. They have too much money tied up in what you do, like it or not.
For this issue we started with a thought, "How does an insurer view your business?" Our Special Report, beginning on page 37 looks at ideas related to cycle time improvements, overseas trends and direct repair programs (DRPs) issues and suggestions for enhancing those relationships. This is NOT an effort to push DRP or be a pro-insurer discussion. The tips are meant to be constructive — to help everyone understand what insurers are looking for, whether or not you have signed DRP deals.
Here's hoping all of us use 2007 to move our businesses forward.
