Western Edition California Nevada Arizona
31
YEARS
www.autobodynews.com ww ww.autobodynews.com
‘Fax-Only’ Parts Ordering Option will End by September For Shops Using PartsTrader 2.2 PartsTrader held a webinar on Aug. 1 to discuss several changes to the parts ordering application, including the end of the “fax-only” ordering option. In the new 2.2 release, which went live on August 1, PartsTrader has made several changes that will affect users of the electronic parts marketplace developed for State Farm’s Select Service DRP. Lucy Smith, Product Manager at PartsTrader, said that—with this release—the option to place orders through PartsTrader by fax will no longer be available in the Tucson, AZ, market effective immediately. The
change was made in preparation for the full state rollout of PartsTrader in Arizona beginning on August 12, according to her statement. The fax option will remain in the other pilot cities of Grand Rapids, Chicago, Birmingham, and Charlotte until the end of August or September 1, Smith said. The fax-only option was originally added to the PartsTrader system so that Select Service facilities could still place orders with their preferred vendors, even if those vendors refused to participate in the PartsTrader program. If a See Fax-Only Ending, Page 9
A Matrix of Parts Procurement Features Won’t Help Shops If They Have No Choice on Usage
See No Choice on Usage, Page 18
P.O. BOX 1516, CARLSBAD, CA 92018
The Collision Industry Conference (CIC) Parts & Materials Committee came to the CIC meeting in Boston in July looking for input from the assemblage for a survey it plans to conduct about electronic parts procurement systems. What it heard was an impassioned request to look at another aspect of the issue. The committee is working to produce a matrix that would help shops or other users of the systems understand the capabilities and features each system offers. At the Boston meeting, the committee shared the
questions about the systems that it plans to ask the providers, and asked CIC participants at the meeting whether the questions would Randy Stabler provide information about the systems that would be helpful. But as the committee was completing its presentation, California shop owner Randy Stabler drew applause when he told the committee that understanding the differences be-
Change Service Requested
by John Yoswick
VOL. 31 ISSUE 9 SEPTEMBER 2013
State Farm & PartsTrader Meet with Industry As Program Rolls Out in the Southwest by John Yoswick
Shop and vendor concern and unhappiness about State Farm’s mandated use of PartsTrader was evident at a packed Automotive Service Association (ASA) of Arizona meeting in Phoenix in August, the same week the program was being rolled David Priest out in that market. We feel you’re using your size and intruding into our business through the shops with PartsTrader,” David Priest, parts director for Brown & Brown Chevrolet in Mesa, AZ, told State Farm’s George Avery at the meeting. “You’re asking me to pay a
fee for a program that will probably decrease OEM part usage. How do you perceive that PartsTrader for an OEM dealer is an effective tool?” Dale Sailer of PartsTrader, who also spoke at the meeting, pointed out that dealers can now see and quote prices for an entire parts list for each job, whereas currently they Dale Sailer may not know about parts that a shop contacts only a recycler or non-OEM parts vendor about. Avery agreed that PartsTrader gives dealers a chance to see other potential business and shop customers. “The performance of those who See PartsTrader Rollout, Page 60
See Correction to July 2013 Article on Felder’s Collision Parts v General Motors et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 3
California Supreme Court Pierces Insurance Shield Against Unfair Competition Claims In a landmark and long-anticipated ruling, the California Supreme Court held Aug. 1 that policyholders can accuse insurance companies of false advertising and other violations of the state’s extensive unfair competition law. The ruling finds insurers are not immune from unfair competition claims over this kind of conduct, resolving a split between courts on the question. The case resolves a significant issue for insurers doing business in California in that they are potentially subject to a private action under the California Unfair Competition law, UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) for conduct that violates California’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) (Cal. Ins. Code §790 et seq.). The UCL is a consumer protection statute that broadly proscribes
“any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” California’s Unfair Competition Law requires that a plaintiff must show he or she “has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of... unfair competition.” The Supreme Court thereby affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision and concluded that “UCL claims may be based on claims handling practices, as long as they do not rest exclusively on UIPA violations.” The UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA. Although relatively narrow, the ruling appears to pierce the shield that insurers have previously enjoyed from unfair competition, potentially inviting more class actions and creating a See Unfair Competition, Page 12
Presorted Standard US Postage PAID San Bernardino, CA Permit #2244