Collision repair decisions involve multiple stakeholders, including OEMs, insurers, repair facilities and technicians, each with different interests and responsibilities. OEM position statements can outline recommended repair procedures and parts, but they are not laws and do not, by themselves, determine every repair decision. Insurers can influence parts selection based on policy terms and cost considerations, while technicians bring firsthand knowledge of the vehicle, parts, fit and repair process. The article argues that safe, correct repairs require balancing OEM procedures, technical information, professional judgment and the specific circumstances of each repair rather than relying solely on one stakeholder’s position.
- Repair objective: The primary goal is to return the vehicle to a correct and safe condition.
- OEM position statements: Automakers publish position statements addressing issues such as the use of OEM, aftermarket and salvage parts.
- GM updates: General Motors has updated some position statements to address ADAS components and restrict access to certain EV front structural components to certified repair facilities.
- Parts availability: OEM-only repair strategies can face challenges related to cost, discontinued parts and backorders.
- Insurance influence: Insurers can influence parts selection and repair costs based on policy terms, including provisions that may allow like-kind and quality or aftermarket parts.
- Different roles: OEMs design and manufacture vehicles, insurers cover losses, repair facilities manage repairs, and technicians physically assess and repair the vehicle.
- Technician expertise: Technicians have firsthand knowledge of the damaged vehicle and the actual fit, condition and suitability of proposed replacement parts.
- Position statements are not laws: An OEM position statement expresses a manufacturer’s position or recommendation; it does not automatically function as legislation or a legal requirement.
- Legal relevance: Position statements may become relevant evidence in a legal dispute, depending on the circumstances.
- Stellantis example: Stellantis owns SUSTAINera and B-Parts, businesses involved in automotive components and salvage parts, while some Stellantis position statements address restrictions on used and aftermarket parts.
- Repair decisions: The article argues that repair decisions should consider OEM procedures, technical information, technician training and experience, part quality and the specific repair circumstances.
- Aftermarket and salvage parts: The article maintains that these parts will remain part of the collision repair market, making informed evaluation of their suitability an ongoing issue for repairers.
No, this is not some “self-help” article on how to better your life by fitting in. Instead, this is an article discussing position statements, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and parts. I can hear the cheers already.
The collision industry can sometimes feel like a nasty, tangled web of control-seeking power mongers, when really it doesn’t need to be. Navigating all the chest-thumping takes some serious mental gymnastics to repair a vehicle.
Let’s begin by addressing the key issue: the vehicle needs to be repaired correctly. Now, who dictates this? Your immediate answer is likely the OEM, and that is a good answer, but is that necessarily true?
If the OEM literally dictates the repair, then we would need to adhere to procedures and position statements to the letter, with no variation
from them. This translates to only new OEM parts and the use of only OEM-approved processes and services, i.e., OEM scan tools and software, and being part of some form of OEM-authorized network, especially if you are not a dealer.
General Motors (GM) has recently reissued some of its position statements with updated verbiage that reflects this ideology by bringing advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) components into the fold, stating OEM parts must be used and salvage or aftermarket parts are forbidden. Also, with its electric vehicles (EVs), GM is restricting access to 12 different front structural components unless you are a certified repair facility. Independents will suffer from this.
Every OEM has a position statement regarding used and aftermarket part usage. Just say no. That is their position: NO!
By this rationale, the OEM should be responsible for managing parts supply
for every make and model out there, in stock and available up to a “reasonable age.” This is in quotes because there is currently no definition of a reasonable age. If a vehicle is two years old, parts can be discontinued. The same can happen if a vehicle is 22 years old. There is no written guide on this. Some of you have learned the hard way.
Regardless, the concept is simple: it removes all the guesswork. Easy-peasy.
Not so fast. If you are thinking this is doable, think again. It is not. I know everyone LOVES the idea of OEM-only parts, but it’s delusional to think that is a viable and sustainable process.
Just look around your shop. Consider the cost. Do you want to bankroll the amount required if everything were OEM? Not to mention the payees. They want repairs to be economical. If that is not enough, now count the backorders. That’s what I thought: a lot of loss-of-use payouts and expensive indoor storage.
We have established that OEMs can’t dictate the repair. They most certainly can influence it.
What about insurance? Can insurers dictate the repair?
They can certainly make an effort to mitigate costs under the policy. Every policy states, and I am generalizing here because there are some exceptions, that like-kind and quality or new aftermarket parts may be used to complete repairs to your vehicle.
The insurer has a fiduciary responsibility to the policyholder in two ways: to indemnify them to their pre-loss condition and to do so without breaking the bank on behalf of all premium payers. Ergo, insurers would love to use the most economical parts available.
But they do not design, build or repair vehicles. They cover losses. So they can’t dictate repairs, but they most certainly can influence them.
We are at a crossroads here. One party says new only. The other says used and aftermarket. So how do we determine who is right and who is wrong?
We don’t. It isn’t that simple.
This is where the technician becomes an important part of the decision. The technician is the person actually performing the repair, assessing the parts and determining whether the repair can be completed properly. Their training, experience and professional responsibility have to carry considerable weight.
That doesn’t mean the technician operates independently of OEM repair procedures, the repair facility, the insurer or other requirements. It means the person actually doing the work needs to have a meaningful voice in determining whether a proposed repair is appropriate.
I get it. Everyone wants control of the repair file.
Stellantis is smart. It realizes there is no way it could keep up using only OEM parts, so it figured, if you can’t beat them, join them. Stellantis now owns SUSTAINera and B-Parts, one an aftermarket manufacturer and supplier of automotive components, the other a salvage company dealing in automotive salvage parts. Interesting, as Stellantis also has position statements denying the use of said parts.
I will leave this here for you to process.
Let’s go back to the technician’s role in the repair. You are sitting here thinking, “What about the position statements?” It is a fair thought, so let’s address it.
At first glance, the inference for many is that this is law. Technically, it is not. It is just as it states: a position or an opinion on a given situation. It is usually a position supported with some form of authenticity, yet is not considered evidential unless it is written and submitted as part of a legal dispute or complaint.
If a legal dispute or complaint escalates into a lawsuit, the corporation’s position statement can be submitted to court as formal evidence.
The corporation is then legally bound to the facts it lays out in this statement. If the company changes its story or provides inconsistent details later in court, it will severely damage its credibility and can sink its legal defence.
(For more information visit SHRM.org)
Now, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It is presented as support for thought.
Most of the statements we encounter are along the lines of public relations position statements. This is likely why payees are comfortable challenging repairers on them. The validity of them challenging it is no different than my Nonna challenging it, and the actual weight of the position statement is minimal, more a bureaucratic hurdle than anything.
So why have it?
Well, the OEM can’t be standing in the shop when parts are ordered. It can’t be at every repair to validate the authenticity or quality of the part being used, so it issues a blanket statement that expresses its position in supporting quality repairs and parts in the simplest way possible.
The payee can express its take by saying its position is that used and aftermarket parts are good, but it is not there when the parts arrive. In most cases, the person supporting the argument on the payee’s behalf has little to no experience repairing these vehicles either.
The technician, on the other hand, is there. They are using and inspecting the parts and assessing how those parts fit into the repair.
That gives the technician an important voice. They bring training, experience and firsthand knowledge of the vehicle in front of them. They may not have the final say in every decision, but their professional judgment should be a significant part of determining whether a repair can be completed correctly.
The vehicle needs to be repaired correctly. We can’t rely solely on the OEM. That is not realistic.
The aftermarket and salvage markets will never go away. It is best to get on board and support repair decisions with facts, experience, skill and credible technical information, not economics, key performance indicators (KPIs) and fear.
