Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collision‑repair industry backs bill to codify OEM repair procedures; insurers warn of higher costs
Summary
SB 356 would require adherence to manufacturer OEM repair procedures and safety inspections for collision repairs; repair shops and trade groups urged passage for safety and standardization, while insurers and parts providers warned the bill is vague and risks raising repair costs and insurance premiums.
Senate Bill 356, presented by Senator Barry Usher, would incorporate manufacturers' OEM repair procedures and safety inspection protocols into state standards for collision repairs and create a mandate for insurers to reimburse associated labor where required.
Proponents from the collision repair industry told the committee that modern vehicles contain advanced driver assistance systems and manufacturer procedures provide the necessary technical specifications to restore vehicles safely. "Our industry considers OEM repair instructions to be our industry standard," Zach Yates testified, describing OEM procedures as the tested reference for safe repairs. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (John McDonald) and shop owners (Paul Flores, Ashley Kovick, Bruce Halcro) emphasized consistent procedures for inspections and calibrations, saying the measure is meant to protect safety.
Opponents — including Amy Grimales for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Greg Van Horsten for State Farm, and Catalina Gilperage for LKQ (aftermarket/recycled parts provider) — argued the bill's language is vague and could be read to require manufacturer parts or broadly mandate procedures that would increase repair costs and insurance premiums. Grimales stated concerns about vagueness at the line cited by the committee and warned the bill could have unintended effects on access and cost.
Committee members pressed proponents on parts usage, liability and whether the bill would force shops to use OEM components or prescribe inspections that vary by make and model. Proponents repeatedly said the bill was not intended to restrict use of alternative parts and that any premium or contractual parts decisions remain between consumers and insurers. Sponsor Usher framed the measure as about safe repairs and appropriate labor reimbursement.
The committee heard both industry safety arguments and insurer cost concerns; proponents asked the committee to advance the bill with possible clarifying amendments to narrow language around inspection checklists and parts.
