Genuine Replacement Par ts For the Road Ahead.

Avoid problems down the road that will cost you time, money and customers Choose Genuine Subaru Replacement Parts, engineered to fit better today, and perform better tomorrow.

For Genuine Subaru Body Parts, contact the following Authorized Subaru Dealers:

Long Subaru 7 Sutton Rd Webster, MA 01570

800-982-2298

Fax: 508-879-1212 tschube@longauto com

Quirk Auto Dealers 115 E Howard St Quincy, MA 02169

Toll Free: 877-707-8475

Balise Subaru 561 Quaker Ln

Warwick, RI 02893

TOLL FREE: 800-992-6220

FAX: 800-254-3544 wparts@baliseauto com www BaliseWholesaleParts com

One Call, One Truck for Eleven Brands!

Patrick Subaru 247 Boston Tur npike Shrewsbury, MA 01545

508-756-8364

Fax: 508-752-3691 www patricksubaru com jlavalley@patrickmotors com continued from pg. 34

The point is that the term “like kind and quality” has a particular meaning with regard to automotive collision repairs in Massachusetts, and it is important that collision repairers know what that meaning is. There are strict rules that must be followed for a part to truly be an LKQ part, and many rebuilt, used and aftermarket parts will not meet the standards set out in the governing regulation. Further, both repairers and insurers are bound by the applicable regulation and are in violation of the governing law if they do not follow it.

Do not be bullied by an insurance appraiser into using an LKQ part, unless the part truly is equal to or better than the part that it is replacing. Your customer has paid an insurance premium in order to bind their insurer’s contractual obligation to pay for legally required repairs, and that includes parts that are used in making those repairs. Do not allow insurers to ignore that contractual obligation to their insured.

OEM Recommended Repair Procedures: Today, every car manufacturer requires or recommends that certain procedures be followed when making particular repairs. Unfortunately, some insurers take the position that, if a manufacturer “recommends” a procedure, then it is not mandatory, and the insurer will refuse to pay for it. As an attorney, I am telling you – the professional auto damage repairer – that such a position is bull! If a manufacturer is recommending a procedure, then you damn well better follow it…and insurers should be paying for you to do so!

The problem is that, no matter what the insurers may be telling you, if you fail to perform an OEM-recommended procedure and the repair fails, or the vehicle reacts unsafely in an accident, then you likely will be legally on the hook for the consequences. A vehicle manufacturer’s recommendation legally may be viewed as an industry standard; and, as a professional repairer, you should be following that standard. You are assumed to be the expert, since your full-time job is repairing damaged cars, and you should be applying your expertise when you make repairs.

If a doctor negligently performs a medical procedure, or if a lawyer negligently does not follow the law or the procedures that they are supposed to follow, then they may be committing malpractice and may be liable for any monetary damages that flow from their actions. By the same token, if you do not follow recommended OEM procedures, then you may be found negligent in performing your job and may be committing repair malpractice, and therefore, you may be liable, resulting in monetary damages.

As previously discussed in this column, perhaps the most widely known case in the United States involving “repair malpractice” is Seebachan v. John Eagle Collision Center. In that case, a repair shop in Texas bonded a roof onto a vehicle, instead of spot welding it. As a result, when the vehicle was in a subsequent accident, the car did not perform as originally engineered; the gas tank ruptured and burst into flames, and the passengers in the vehicle were trapped inside where they suffered severe, life-altering injuries. A jury found the shop to have been negligent in how it performed the repairs, and the jury awarded the plaintiffs $42 million in damages.

For purposes of this article, it should be noted how one of the attorneys that defended John Eagle Collision Center characterized the issue in his firm’s online blog: “The roof panel of the 2010 Honda Fit was replaced with the use of 3M adhesive bonding instead of spot welds as had been recommended by the manufacturer Honda Motor” [emphasis added]. In other words, it was enough that Honda had recommended the procedure for the repair shop to be found negligent for how it performed repairs to the vehicle.

It is also instructive to note how the judge in the Seebachan case accurately defined the term “negligence” in his instructions to the jury: “’Negligence means the failure to use ordinary care, that is to say, failure to do that which a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances, or doing that which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances.” You are an expert in the collision repair industry. If the manufacturer of a vehicle recommends that a particular procedure be used in making a repair, how could you ever claim that you were using “ordinary care” when making repairs if you did not follow those procedures?

Also, be aware that it does not matter whether an insurer is willing to pay for a recommended procedure. You are responsible for the work that you do and the consequences that follow, no matter what an insurer tells you or pays for. As a result, you should always make sure that you know what procedures a manufacturer is recommending for every repair that you make, and you should continued on pg. 40