• 13 Jun 2018 7:38 PM | Anonymous

    Clink the link below to view the Bumper/ Fascia Replacement memo from GM: 

    2018 June GM BumperFasciaRepair Final.pdf

  • 23 May 2018 10:18 AM | Anonymous

    Insurers are way off-base when they withhold payment for processes and materials that they know should be done but don’t provide for them… unless they are requested and only then when proof that they were performed is provided!

    Read more: Auto Body Shops Don’t Owe Insurers Documentation

  • 14 May 2018 8:12 PM | Anonymous

    Follow the link to view a state search feature for laws, statues, etc. 

    North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings

  • 14 May 2018 11:46 AM | Anonymous

    The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday voted for an amended bill which extends the time Rhode Island insurers must secure consumer consent for aftermarket parts and expands which consumers and parts receive that consideration.

    The substitute version of Senate Bill 2679 extends the customer-consent requirement from 30 months to the first 48 months of vehicle life, still less than the average vehicle loan span but one of the longest durations in the country. However, a supporter has pointed out that the bill pegs the time to production date, which can mean as much as six months of the 48 might have elapsed before the consumer actually took possession of the car.

    Read more: R.I. Senate Judiciary backs OEM parts, procedures bill with one tweak

  • 13 Apr 2018 3:08 PM | Anonymous
    Pick any week and any autobody forum and you'll find a shop owner or collision repair technician debating the installation of a used Quarter Panel. Several OEMs have position statements against using used parts in collision repair. But can position statements alone make a case for the use and non use of parts in a repair? In this episode of Repair University LIVE the team tackles the issue of used quarter panels. How can estimators and technicians decipher the panel replacement procedures and make an educated decision on the do's and dont's of part usage? They also discuss the included and not included operations of panel replacement and the additional labor and material expenses associated with using a used quarter panel.

    For more info visit here: 

  • 10 Apr 2018 10:09 AM | Anonymous

    Below are I-Car classes scheduled at our facility through June.  These will be held at Carolina Collision Equipment in Mooresville. 

    Saturday 4/7/2018 Two classes both DAM 06- Suspension damage analysis  


    Saturday 5/5/2018 Three classes, ADH01 adhesive bonding 8am to 12pm.

                                                                GEOOL01 Cycle time 12pm to 4 pm.

                                                       PLA03-Plastics repair and welding 4pm to 8pm.


    Saturday 6/2/2018 Three classes   SPS10 structural sectioning 8am to 12pm.

                                                  MEA01 Measuring 12pm to 4pm. No students yet.

                                                                 SPS07 Introduction to HHS 4pm to 8pm.


    Monday 6/4/2018 WKR01 Worker protection 5:30pm to 9:30pm 25 Students registered.


    Tuesday 6/5/2018 WCS04 Resistance welding 5:30pm to 9:30pm 4 students pre-registered.

  • 3 Apr 2018 9:44 AM | Anonymous

    Take a look at the two new position statements from Hyundai, and please share with your members. These positions are posted on along with all other manufacturer positions, and marks a step in the right direction from Hyundai, in regard to providing the North American market with repair information.  



  • 30 Mar 2018 10:58 AM | Anonymous
    Written by Chasidy Rae Sisk

    The North Carolina Association of Collision and Autobody Repair (NCACAR) spent mid-February supporting its local industry.

    It hosted a training session on Estimating 101 on Feb. 17, and several association leaders met with the Department of Insurance (DOI) on Feb. 15 to discuss insurers causing delays with claims.

    Estimating 101 was held at Larry Walker & Sons Body Shop in High Point, NC, was taught by Clint Rogers of Triangle Collision and attracted 25 industry professionals.

    NCACAR President Brian Davies noted, “The purpose of the class was to teach other shops different types of things they may not be aware of that are required to produce a safe repair. We had a good turnout, and Clint did a great job.”

    Rogers began by handing out copies of a generic 2013 Honda Accord estimate with passenger side door damage and quarter panel damage. He instructed pairs of attendees to analyze the estimate to determine if it was sufficient to produce a safe and thorough repair that followed the vehicle manufacturer’s repair instructions. They were also instructed to prepare a supplement should they find the estimate deficient. Then, he examined the estimate panel by panel, utilizing the Honda manual to discuss their repair instructions and demonstrate what he would have added to the estimate based upon Honda’s instructions.

    Davies observed, “On average, the estimates were missing 25 percent to 50 percent of the required operations, and some of the commonly missed items included scanning, OEM research and additional p-page items for operations required. It’s clear that we all need to spend more time researching the necessary OEM repair instructions, along with reviewing the p-page items, to ensure we understand which required labor items are not included in the guide and, more importantly, to ensure we are performing a complete and correct repair.”

    Josh Kent, Director of Membership for NCACAR, added, “These types of classes are invaluable to our industry, and we need more of them, which we plan on doing. It gives the shops insight into what others are doing and why. Since the class, I have spoken to a few guests, and they said it was great, they learned a lot and it was well worth the time spent to attend.”

    On Feb. 15, Davies visited the DOI with NCACAR Vice President Meredith Bradshaw and Ed Kizenberger, Executive Director of the Long Island Auto Body Repairmen’s Association (LIABRA), to discuss how North Carolina shops can hold insurance companies accountable for time delays during the claims process. They met with Deputy Insurance Commissioner Cathy Short to explain the repair process and demonstrate some of the differences in time delays between DRP and non-DRP shops.

    The group discussed how delays are caused by parts issues, insurance adjuster processes and waiting for approval. They also described payment delays experienced by non-DRP shops. The collision repair industry advocates shared information on how these types of delays are handled in New York, Montana, Mississippi and New Jersey as a means of providing possible solutions instead of just presenting problems.

    Davies reported that the DOI seemed very receptive to the conversation and informed them that the Department is establishing a task force under Tracy Biehnto help address these issues moving forward. Davies is hopeful that progress on this and other issues will be made as a result of the task force’s efforts. The task force will include Robbie Walker of Walker & Sons Body Shop, Dennis Reittingerof Mid-Town Body RepairBilly Walkowiak from Collision Safety Consultants,Chris Krencicki from CK Appraisal, K & M Collision’s Meredith BradshawGlenn E. Twigg of Twiggs Appraisal, Brian Davies from Bodyworks Collision Repair Center and Collision Service Investigators’ Danny Wyatt. Invitations have been extended to several more industry professionals, but have not yet been accepted. The task force will hold its first official meeting on March 19.


    For the original article click HERE

  • 30 Mar 2018 10:54 AM | Anonymous

    The Collision Repair Education Foundation and the TechForce Foundation will be hosting transportation (collision, auto service, heavy duty, etc.) career fairs to help introduce students to industry employers/vendors. Business students will also be invited to participate at these events. These events are available to all industry members to participate.

    Tampa/Orlando, FL (2/14)
    Miami, FL (2/16)
    San Antonio, TX (3/1)
    Los Angeles, CA (3/16)
    Chicago, IL (4/6)
    Phoenix, AZ (4/7)
    Denver, CO (4/13)
    Greensboro, NC (4/18-4/19)
    Atlanta, GA (4/24)
    Boston, MA (4/26)
    Dallas, TX (4/27) 
    Nashville, TN (5/16)

    Interested in participating in one (or several) of these events? Contact:


  • 19 Feb 2018 3:36 PM | Anonymous

    Written by:  Mark Bono

    First off, let me start out by saying that this is one person’s opinion, a person who aspires for excellence in whatever industry a person chooses to work in. It by no means reflects the opinions or positions of any of the organizations or companies I work or consult for or provide services to, currently or previously.

    The following is a hypothetical situation to stimulate thought and conversation among professionals, no matter what industry you’re in.


    So, let’s talk hypothetically. Let’s say you were in the business of repairing widgets, and you were repairing them directly for a company that promised customers that their widgets, if damaged, would be returned to their pre-damaged condition and would continue to perform the same as when they were new.

    Now, widgets are sold at a variety of cost and performance levels. Also, of course, the type and amount of damage can vary considerably. However, they all have one common factor: People’s lives depend on their proper operation. Therefore, proper repair procedures and proper equipment are critical to repairing the widgets correctly. Otherwise, people could die or be seriously injured.

    This company has several hundred people repairing widgets for them. They do not require any special training, equipment, and/or certifications of the people repairing widgets for them, only that they repair the widgets competitively, quickly and correctly. This company then measures your performance according to these three areas, and in turn rewards the top performers by sending them more widgets to repair. Sounds great, right? As long as the tools used for measuring were correct, let’s talk about them.

    Measuring Performance

    The company will measure the three categories as follows:

    “Competitively” will be measured by the average cost of each widget repaired.

    “Quickly” will be measured by how much time it takes to repair the average widget, commonly referred to as “lead time” in manufacturing.

    “Correctly” is the difficult one, especially if we don’t physically inspect each individual repair and compare the repair to the actual correct procedure. We could also recreate the original damage and look at the results, but that would be impractical and would defeat the purpose of repairing the widget in the first place. We could make sure that the shop is properly trained/certified, has the proper equipment to perform the repair, and can document the repair procedure – the latter being the most practical, cost-effective method to ensure quality repairs.

    However, the company realizes that this method would force them to limit the number and type of shops that can be on their program; only well-trained, well-equipped and certified widget repair facilities could participate. This could adversely affect the competitive nature of the program by forcing all of the shops on the program to outlay a substantial amount of capital, which in turn could force the shops to possibly raise the price/cost of their widget repair. The company instead will choose to just tell the widget repair shops to fix it right, and then ask the customer if they’re happy with the repair, if everything looks good and if their widget is working properly. In essence, the company will ask the customer if the widget was repaired correctly, and assume that the customer has the knowledge and/or understanding of widget repair to properly answer that question. We will call this “customer satisfaction.”

    So, hypothetically, repairing widgets quickly and cheaply is what is required to do work for the company – but the widgets have to look good and the customer better be happy!

    A Win-Win

    As the program progresses and the measurements come in, the company is ecstatic. They now can compare their widget repair shops, reward the top performers and eliminate or force the lesser-performing shops to implement customer satisfaction, efficiency and/or cost-saving strategies by showing these lesser-performing shops how they compare.

    The company will never tell you how or why those shops are performing better. In fact, they really don’t know why; they’ll just tell the lesser-performing shops that the better-performing shops repair more parts on the widgets or use cheaper parts on the widgets or charge less labor to fix the widgets – without actually investigating why this is.

    It’s a win-win. The customer is happy because the widget looks good, the company is happy because their costs are down, and many of the widget repair facilities on the program are happy because they’re getting a ton of widget repairs. A few of the widget repair shops aren’t happy because they feel they cannot properly repair the widgets to the OEM specifications within the program guidelines, so they’re either removed or they remove themselves. That makes the program even more competitive and forces the rest of the widget repair shops to look for more ways to cut costs and improve efficiency. It’s beautiful!

    Who’s at Fault?

    Then, someone’s widget fails to perform correctly, and a customer is seriously injured. It’s later discovered that a part that was supposed to be welded in place was instead glued to save time and labor, and it did not properly protect the owner of the widget. The widget repair facility says it’s not their fault because they’re trying to perform within the program’s parameters. The company says it’s not their fault because they told the shop to fix the widget correctly, and they never tell them how to fix the widget, only to fix it within their parameters.

    So here are the questions I pose to you:

    • Is this hypothetical possible?
    • Who is at fault for this performance failure and for the possibility of more?
    • What will happen to the widget repair shops that didn’t feel they could fix widgets correctly within the program’s cost parameters and are either removed or remove themselves from the program?
    • Will the widget repair shops that continue on the program be able to appropriately compensate their qualified widget repair technicians, based on the more competitive structure of the program?
    • Will this force widget repair technicians to leave this industry?
    • Where will you find new, qualified widget repair technicians?
    • Most importantly, how many more widgets have to fail before somebody does something about it?

    Hypothetically, of course. Just sayin’.

    This article was published on the Body Shop Business website.  The article can be found here.

"NCACAR" is a 501(c)6 non-profit organization. Charlotte, NC 28201
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software