IT’S NOT WHAT YOU THINK, BUT WHAT YOU KNOW THAT REALLY MATTERS
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARE AN INSURER, A SHOP OWNER OR A TECHNICIAN, WHEN EVIDENCE SUPPORTING AN OPERATION IS PRESENTED, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED.
Let me begin with a helpful tip: never write an article about insurance communication and relations while you are on hold for 15 minutes listening to muzak from the very parties involved.
Following a New Year’s resolution — not mine, but someone else’s — I am now back in a Zen zone, eating kale and not sweating the small stuff.
In the collision repair industry, there has been some confusion and misinterpretation about who does what. Without clarity, we are all swimming in mud. Let’s break the components down into something simple.
To begin with, we have the original equipment manufacturer, or OEM. This group designs and manufactures vehicles. They spend a great deal of time and money researching and developing ways to make vehicles economical yet safe under the guidelines presented by government legislation.
Just the research that takes place before a prototype ever sees an assembly line is monumental. For example, the E63/64 BMW 645i was first shown to the public at the 2003 Frankfurt Auto Show. BMW invested millions — millions — in the design of that vehicle before it ever took physical form.
The point here is that OEMs do not spend money on frivolity during production. If something is on the vehicle, it serves a purpose. This is where repair procedures begin to set a precedent. OEMs do not repair vehicles, they design them — sometimes with repair in mind. Next comes the repairer: the collision repair facility and the technicians who physically repair the vehicle.
With education focused on the repair process and practical wisdom — also known as phronesis — these individuals repair vehicles. In some cases, technicians are versed in all aspects of the trade, including structural alignment, outer panel repair and refinishing.
Some specialize in a single area. A refinishing technician, for example, may focus exclusively on coatings and avoid preparation work entirely. The skill sets of these individuals may also extend into the front office in the form of repair planning and administration. These technicians need the cognitive ability to understand and apply the procedures outlined by engineers at the OEM level.
Those millions BMW spent? Much of that investment goes into engineering. That engineering becomes the procedures technicians rely on during repair.
So far, we have OEMs that design, engineer and build vehicles but do not repair them. We have technicians who repair vehicles but do not design or engineer them. Both are educated and proficient in their respective fields. Each understands the other’s challenges but is not trained to perform those roles.
Yet both are expected to produce a finished product of like kind and quality at the end of their work.
Insurers serve another critical role in the process: risk mitigation. Insurance providers assess data and calculate the probability of events that could lead to damage requiring repair. When you sit down with an insurance provider, they ask a series of questions to build a profile and determine your risk level. From there, actuaries and underwriters assign a premium.
Edna is 58 years old and drives to bingo twice a week and occasionally to the mall. Her premiums are lower than Bob’s, who drives frequently through the downtown core and has a tendency to speed. Bob presents a greater collision risk.
The business model is essentially a gamble. Ideally, neither Edna nor Bob will have a collision, and the premiums collected can be invested for a return. That’s how insurers generate profit.
Many skilled staff in insurance offices hold a CIP designation — Certified Insurance Professional — which is not easy to obtain. With that training comes the ability to adjust claims, investigate losses and even pursue actuarial work.
When a collision occurs, the wager is called. The insurer must pay. Adjusting the loss often means finding ways to reduce the payout, which is where discussions begin about parts selection and repair methods.
Still with me?
OEMs design and manufacture vehicles but do not repair them. Technicians repair vehicles but do not engineer them. Insurers insure against collision damage but do not design, engineer or repair vehicles.
Now we have established the playing field. Sometimes the lines blur among these three groups. Even a little perceived knowledge can become a dangerous weapon.Is collision repair an absolute science? Not even close. The variables are often enormous.
Used parts or aftermarket parts. Required repair operations. Different ways to complete the same task. Who says what — and why? This is where communication in our industry often becomes complicated.
Let’s clarify something important: all parties are trying to make a profit. That is a fair expectation. Understanding the role and limitations of each participant is the key to effective communication.
Will there be grey areas? Absolutely. Can those areas be managed? Absolutely — with substantiated knowledge, practical wisdom and documented facts. If procedures specify an operation, it must be performed, documented and compensated. If expertise indicates there is a better method and that expertise is supported by documentation, then that method must also be performed and compensated.
The biggest challenge in communication is the misuse of perception. Perception is the recognition and interpretation of sensory information, often influenced by attitude, motivation or personal gain. In simple terms, it is what we think about something.
Inference, on the other hand, is a conclusion drawn from evidence and logical reasoning. It is what we know. Regardless of whether you are an insurer, a shop owner or a technician, when evidence supporting an operation is presented, it must be accepted. Move on. Don’t waste time expressing what you think about something. That has little merit. No one cares — especially the courts.
In my opinion — and you are entitled to my opinion — obtaining proper documentation to support your inference in a grey area carries far more weight than relying on perception from a questionable source.
This works for everyone involved.If procedures or agreements say one thing and there is nothing to support otherwise, the conversation is over.
Time to move on. Simple. Straightforward communication. Communication we can care about.
