[LOCAL] NEWS
Impasse: ADALB Fails to Approve Regulatory Amendments Yet Again
When the last meeting of the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) concluded in January, it seemed likely the meeting on March 15 would include a final vote on the proposed amendments to 212 CMR 2.00, which have been rehashed at length during each meeting since early 2021; however, concerns raised by the insurance representatives on the Board prevented a final vote yet again. The meeting began favorably with unanimous votes in response to the first two agenda items which involved reinstatement of an appraiser’s expired license and establishing a timeframe when a lapsed license requires review by the Board; however, when the ADALB resumed its review of 212 CMR 2.00, the congenial relationship between insurance and collision representatives evaporated almost immediately. Only two sections of the regulations remained to be approved by the ADALB before sending the proposed amendments to the Division of Insurance (DOI) for review: 2.04(1)(e) and 2.04(2), and although the latter elicited little controversy, discussion on the former quickly grew contentious as the Board debated whether the revisions contradicted 211 CMR 133. “Is it really in keeping with 211 CMR 133?” Board member Samantha Tracy (Arbella Insurance) shared her primary concern. “This language puts the onus on the insurer to return the parts, regardless of who’s at fault for them not fitting, and I think that
12 May 2022
New England Automotive Report
might be a contradiction.” Board members Rick Starbard (Rick’s Auto Collision; Revere) and Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) pointed out that the regulation indicated this situation only applies “if both parties agree that a specified part is unfit and must be replaced” and suggested adding verbiage to create a caveat to remove the responsibility from the insurer in the event that it’s the repair shop’s fault that the part doesn’t fit. “It’s vitally important that the responsibility language stays in there,” Starbard stressed. “We shouldn’t be legislating common sense, but because the language in 211 is being interpreted without common sense, we need to provide clarity by leaving in language that states who is responsible. That is the most important clarification in this whole regulation.” Despite Starbard’s motion to approve the verbiage and allow the DOI to review it, Attorney Michael Powers and the insurance representatives vehemently declined his suggestion, insisting that approval by the ADALB would only result in a rejection by the DOI. A vote revealed a decisive split between the insurers and collision representatives, and while Chairman Michael Donovan deviated from what appears to be his most common tendency of voting in line with the insurers, his decision to abstain from the vote led to the same result: more delays. continued on pg. 38
