SCOTTSDALE, AZ. – One of the benefits of attending a Collision Industry Conference (CIC) meeting is having the chance to question insurers and other attendees in person about their policies. The first CIC meeting in 2009 was no different as repairers had the opportunity to question CCC representatives about the company’s recent decision to reinstate the bumper refinish overlap deduction. CCC reps Jim Dickens and Bruce Yungkans fielded questions and complaints over the course of the session.
Following is a partial transcript of the session:
Dickens: “Based on our research, materials and processes we have come to the position that it is common and produces a quality repair if you paint the flexible bumper and a metal part in a continuous process. This is just to clarify that this is off the car, not on the car. This is common, not predominant. And this is overlap that is not adjacent. It’s non-adjacent. It’s not adjacent overlap, which would indicate painting two parts together.”
“With the 4.5 release, just to be clear, we’re not turning on the bumper prompt. The bumper prompt remains off. What we are doing is facilitating the ability for somebody to turn it on. The use of the prompt, if it’s used and it’s used to state a continuous process, is easily discernable on the estimate because there will be overlap for clearcoat taken in the estimate, and it will be a separate line.”
“That’s what we’ve done. We’ve found that it’s common. It’s quality. It’s off the car. Clearcoat only. And it’s a non-adjacent overlap deduction.”
“That’s the position we’ve taken in order to try and facilitate an accurate estimate. Finally, our recommendation is that the estimate should be written to reflect the process used. So if you don’t use a continuous process, you not answer ‘yes’ at the prompt. And if you never use a continuous process, don’t bother to turn it on. That’s our recommendation.”
Jordan Hendler, Washington Metropolitan Auto Body Association: “Less than a year ago, you had unequivocal evidence that the prompt was improper. Nothing has changed with the products. Nothing has changed with the procedures. So why the change?”
Dickens: “My answer is the materials have changed, and we have learned more about the process.”
Hendler: “So, the paint manufacturers in the room, have any of your processes changed? Any of your products changed?”
Dickens: “We’re talking about clearcoats being introduced. This is all just about the clearcoat.”
Yungkans: “This is actually just about the clearcoat. Let me explain the reason for the prompt so maybe it will be more clear to everyone. The Motor Guide defines the clearcoat cap to include a clearcoat that’s applied in a continuous process on exterior panels. They do not specifically exclude bumpers from that cap so the only reason that we can tell whether a bumper is a part of that process of applying a clearcoat is to ask a question: Are you going to use the same materials on the rest of the car as you are on the bumper? There are in fact several products on the market today that they consider to be universal clearcoats that can be used on both sheet metals and flexible parts. In addition to that, our research, however limited perhaps, indicates that a lot of shops as a common practice when they have a small job paint the bumper and the sheet metal parts using the same clearcoat, which includes the flex additive or hardener or whatever the additive is. It’s not always considered to be a flex additive.”
Tony Passwater: “We just can’t understand how you can go and get all the evidence and then not go back to the paint companies and they haven’t changed their position. Then, you make a change.”
Yungkans: “It’s perfectly acceptable to use the same clearcoat on a both a flexible part and a sheet metal part so long as you meet all the requirements of a flexible part. It’s a common and acceptable practice.
Toby Chess: “Acceptable to whom? It’s not acceptable to the paint companies. There are some clears out there, but these aren’t in the systems we use in our shops.”
“They make the comment that there are clears that can do these things. We’re all using systems out there in our shops. Insurers are requiring that if you’re on a program that you have a mixing bank that can use all of their products. When you cross-contaminate products, the paint companies void out their warranties. The premise is wrong. As an acceptable procedure, we need to follow what the manufacturers say to us. Then all of a sudden we’re hearing ‘this is an acceptable procedure.’ Every shop I go into every bumper is off the vehicle.”
Yungkans: “Toby, I don’t have anyway of answering that without repeating what I’ve already said.”
Yungkans: “If I go out and ask a hundred shops, I’m going to find twenty five of them that will tell me they’re using the same clearcoat on the bumper and the rest of the car. I will assume that these are good quality and upstanding and honest shops who are following the requirement. If I find 25 out of a hundred I would say that is common. It may not be prominent, but it’s certainly common.”
Barry Dorn, Dorn’s Paint and Body: “I haven’t seen anything that says the paint manufacturers have changed anything. Couldn’t you and Jim and CCC see how the repair community could see this as only a method to lower estimate values, whether or not it was pushed by an insurer. As the repair community sees it, that appears to be would have happened - this is only a method to lower estimate values. I wonder how CCC would respond to that.”
