House committee hears bill to require insurer acceptance of automaker repair procedures

Senate Bill 356, introduced in House Business and Labor by Sen. Barry Usher, drew hours of testimony on whether insurance companies should be required to accept automakers’ repair procedures and safety inspections when vehicles are repaired after collisions.

Proponents told the committee that modern vehicles — with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), mixed materials and specific post‑collision calibration needs — require repairs aligned with manufacturer procedures to restore vehicles to their pre‑accident safety condition. John McDonald of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said automakers provide the only comprehensive, crash‑tested repair procedures and cited a $42,000,000 jury verdict in Texas that he said arose from improper prior repairs. “Consumers buy insurance to be made whole after an accident,” McDonald said, and he asked the committee to give insureds “the expectation” that OEM procedures will be followed.

Collision‑repair business witnesses — including Drew Geiger of the Montana Collision Repair Association, Bruce Halcro (Capital Collision Center), Paul Flores (Rick’s Auto Body) and several independent shop owners — described how shops use technical service manuals, how ADAS calibrations are common (testimony estimated ADAS work on roughly 60% of repair vehicles coming into shops) and that some OEM inspection procedures can run dozens of pages for a model. Zach Yates of Yates Body Shop described repair workflows and said shops routinely include OEM tasks in estimates but face denials from adjusters for labor items.

Opponents — primarily insurance industry representatives including Greg Van Horsten of State Farm, Amy Grimales of the APCIA and Bruce Spencer of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies — said existing insurance contracts already require returning vehicles to “pre‑accident condition” and that mandating acceptance of OEM procedures would increase insurance costs and premiums. Van Horsten told the committee insurers balance returning cars to pre‑accident condition with keeping premiums affordable. APCIA attorney Amy Grimales and others pointed to Montana’s high average paid claim and labor rates and urged caution about large, across‑the‑board mandates. Representatives of aftermarket parts suppliers (LKQ) and the Auto Care Association also opposed the bill, saying it would restrict consumer choice of alternative parts despite proponents’ repeated denials.

Committee members pressed both sides on specifics: how often OEM procedures are actually needed, how repair shops document necessary tasks, and whether buyers can instead purchase higher‑tier policies that guarantee OEM parts. Witnesses cited recent regulatory and litigation examples and disagreed on whether the change would be limited to labor tasks and calibrations or would effectively force OEM‑only parts in practice.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. Sponsor Barry Usher closed by reiterating the bill’s stated focus on consumer safety and said he would work with members on language; he asked the committee for a “do pass.”