ILNews

Body shops sue insurers, allege push to drive down prices

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana body shops and auto insurers are on a collision course over repair compensation practices, a dispute that could cost millions of dollars to patch up.

In a federal lawsuit, 14 Indiana shops accuse State Farm Insurance and competitors of extracting “unreasonable and onerous” concessions on vehicle repair costs. When a shop doesn’t comply with price ceilings, the insurers dissuade policyholders from choosing that shop for repairs by telling them it has quality issues or gets lots of complaints, the shops allege in the suit filed April 2 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

“There’s going to be a battle,” said Tony Passwater, executive director of the Indiana Auto Body Association, the lead plaintiff.

The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and names 27 insurers including Illinois-based State Farm, which has the largest market share in the state at about 25 percent. Others with large market share include Ohio-based Progressive Insurance and locally based Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.

The suit is just the latest brought by the collision-repair industry, which has filed similar cases this year in Florida and Mississippi.

At the core of these cases is the relationship body shops have with insurers under what are known as “direct repair program agreements.”

When introduced more than a decade ago, many shops initially embraced such agreements for the prospect of insurers’ steering more business their way in exchange for giving them some breaks on pricing, Passwater said.

Today, however, shops allege such agreements have evolved in favor of insurers—a big problem as shops on average receive 75 percent to 95 percent of their revenue from customers with insurance.

When insurers don’t cover the full cost of repairs, “it’s such a difficult thing to pass on to a customer,” said Kevin Wells, who operates Quality Collision Inc. in Bloomington and is a plaintiff in the suit.

Wells said he often just eats the cost the insurance company won’t pay.

“I’m taking it in the shorts by about $6 an hour for every job I do,” Wells said.

State Farm ‘spearheading’

The lawsuit takes aim at State Farm, which uses its dominant and influential position among other insurers in “spearheading efforts to control and artificially depress damage repair costs,” the suit alleges.

State Farm spokeswoman Missy Dundov denied the allegations but declined to elaborate.

“This suit has no merit and in no way accurately describes the business relationship State Farm has with thousands of body shops across the country,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Indiana Farmers said the company had not received notice it had been named in a suit.

A search of complaints against State Farm filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance did not reveal any filed by body shops, said department spokeswoman Alexandra Peck.

Body shops say State Farm conducts surveys of the going labor rate shops charge in a given area. The data and methodology are not disclosed, shops complain. “Shops are simply required to blindly accept State Farm’s pronouncements regarding these matters.”

The insurer attempts to prohibit shops from discussing the labor rates they provide as part of the surveys, “asserting any discussion may constitute illegal price fixing.”

Shops that complain the labor rate is inadequate are often told they are the only body shop in the area to say so and that they don’t conform to the “market rate.”

In fact, “State Farm knew multiple shops had attempted to raise their labor rates and advised State Farm of such,” the suit alleges.

Boxed out of business

The shops allege insurers have failed to abide by industry standards for auto repairs and repair-estimating databases. At the same time, many insurers pressure shops to reduce costs by using recycled parts. But used parts like doors can require hours of additional labor to be made to fit properly and to recondition.

Ultimately, shops are required to either make “less than quality” repairs or suffer a financial loss. Taking shortcuts raises the specter of safety issues, but once a vehicle is repaired it’s not easy to spot problems such as improper welds that might be hidden by seam sealer.

Neither scenario is palatable to many body shops.

“There are a lot of them that have hung it up and said, ‘That’s it. I can’t take it anymore,’” Passwater said.

“The guys can’t make it. It’s not that they are bad businesspeople,” said Scott Blake, of Blake’s Carstar Collision Center, in LaPorte, who also is president of the IABA.

Some shops have survived cost pressures by adding additional services such as applying sprayed-on bed liners for pickup trucks. Some shops have purchased others through a rollup strategy intended to improve efficiencies.

Passwater said the state once had about 2,000 shops; there are now 800 to 1,000.

Collision industry battle growing

The 34-page suit alleges insurers have violated the federal Sherman Act, both in price-fixing and through boycotting tactics.

They contend the boycotting efforts include insurers telling policyholders that a certain shop will be more expensive and that choosing it also means they’ll be responsible for additional rental-car charges.

Another tactic, body shops allege, is to tell consumers the work won’t be guaranteed by using a shop that doesn’t conform to a repair program agreement. That’s misleading, however, because insurers require all shops to stand behind their work for a period of time.

The collision shops seek unspecified compensatory damages for under-payments as well as damage for lost business opportunities.

They also seek an injunction that would require insurers modify their practices.

This template for the collision repair industry’s battle against State Farm and other insurers was drawn by Mississippi attorney John Eaves Jr.

In January, Eaves brought a suit on behalf of Mississippi’s collision shops. The following month, a case was brought in Florida on behalf of 21 shops.

Local counsel for Indiana body shops is Mark Sniderman, of Sniderman Nguyen LLP.•

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT