The California Assembly has sent a bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would require auto body repair shops to affirm that the crash parts designated in their written invoices were actually installed on the vehicle.
The bill (AB 1483) passed the California Senate and Assembly in early September, and is awaiting the governor's signature.
Several industry organizations and the California Department of Consumer Affairs have lined up in opposition, describing the bill as redundant and claiming that it will create more paperwork for shops.
The bill was proposed by the Center for Auto Safety and introduced by assembly member Wilmer Amina Carter (D-Rialto) in February, and received support from Honda, the Association of California Insurance Companies (ACIC), Consumer Action, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Personal Injury Insurance Federation of California.
The bill, which actually started out as a traffic safety bill, has been touted as a way to prevent autobody repair and insurance fraud by reducing the incidence of parts switching by repairers. The California Autobody Association (CAA), however, believes that this new affirmation simply repeats existing estimate and invoice requirements without providing any new consumer protections.
"It's unnecessary and redundant," says Jack Molodanof, lobbyist for the CAA. "The supporters of this bill say it's going to help protect consumers, but we can't see how. Under current law, you have to list the parts on the estimate and on the invoice. This is a third statement that says we really did use the parts we already listed above. It doesn't make any sense to do that three times. It's already in the statute."
Under existing California law, repairers are required to list all service work done and parts supplied on an invoice, and to indicate whether any used, rebuilt or reconditioned parts were supplied. Shops also are required to indicate whether crash parts are OEM or aftermarket parts. This information also is required on an itemized, written estimate.
AB 1483 would require the invoice to state specifically whether remanufactured parts were supplied (an element specifically requested by Honda), and for the repairer to sign an affirmation to the customer upon completion of repairs indicating that the crash parts on the estimate were installed on the vehicle. The affirmation must be signed by the "automotive repair dealer or responsible managing employee," and has to appear on the first page of the final invoice.
"AB 1483 would help to assure that repair shops are actually providing the crash parts that formed the basis of the repair estimates and the final charges for the repair work by requiring a simple certification — presumably one which would easily fit into the routine practices of any auto body repair shop — that the final bill for repairs reflects the installation of the parts specified in the original cost estimate," says Samuel Sorich, president of the ACIC, in a letter of support sent to the assembly.
The California Motor Car Dealers Association (CMDA), the Automotive Service Councils of California, and the California Automotive Business Coalition joined CAA in its opposition to the bill.
The CMDA noted that the bill was "another in a long series of proposed legislation ... in which the aftermarket parts certification industry attempted to force or influence consumers directly or indirectly into accepting non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts. Although AB 1483 is less ambitious than these prior effects, it still suffers from the same congenital defect; requiring automotive repair dealers to duplicate work already required by the statute."
Interestingly, the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the state's Bureau of Automotive Repair and would effectively be in charge of enforcing the new statute, also opposed the bill. In a letter to assembly member Carter dated May 20, deputy director Laura Zuniga stated that the "provisions of this bill are duplicative of existing law and therefore unnecessary."
"This just adds more paperwork for the shop," said Molodanof. "It also puts them in the position where they might get into trouble just because somebody forgot to sign the form, even if they did the right thing and put all of the parts on the car. And it's redundant. If a shop switches parts, that's fraud. The shop gets in trouble for that under the existing law."
Another industry group, the recently formed Collision Repair Association of California (CRA), has come out in support of the bill. The CRA initially opposed 1483, but worked with the bill's sponsor to draft compromise language that was more acceptable to its members.
"We had originally opposed the bill, but we were told it was very likely to pass," says Allen Wood, CRA executive director. "We thought we should make the best of it, so we offered some suggested amendments to the sponsor, which they adopted."
Among the changes made at the request of the CRA were a shift in the language of the bill from requiring a "certification" that the listed parts were installed to an affirmation, and allowing the affirmation to be done by a responsible managing employee.
Wood says that the group doesn't see any harm in the bill directing shops to affirm the parts, since they were already doing this through the invoicing process. "Anybody operating properly is doing this anyway," Wood says. "This only requires an affirmation of the crash parts. We didn't see that as a bad idea, but we did recognize that we didn't want the bill to go through as it was."
The bill arrived on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk as one of several hundred pieces of legislation enrolled at the end of the 2007 session, so it is unclear exactly when he might sign AB 1483 into law.