A Systematic Disconnect at the ADALB?

[LOCAL] NEWS

A Systematic Disconnect at the ADALB?

Following more than a year of contention, dispute and “compromise,” the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) finally approved the proposed amendments to 212 CMR 2.00 with a three-to-one vote…but while the long-awaited and fiercely-debated motion passed with ease on July 19, the rest of the meeting was filled with tension, rebuffed attempts at education and plenty of evidence to indicate that there’s a serious disconnect at the ADALB.

Board member Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) requested a discussion about insurers notifying consumers that their damaged vehicle will be moved from a body shop before the insurance company’s appraiser physically inspects it.

Board member Rick Starbard (Rick’s Auto Collision; Revere) suggested sending a letter to the insurer in question reminding them of inspection timelines, but rather than put it to a motion and vote, Attorney Michael Powers insisted the ADALB will “deal with it at the next meeting.”

Civilities devolved as the Board got to work reviewing 100 complaints against ADALB-licensed appraisers by a licensed appraiser who owns a body shop.

Board member Peter Smith (MAPFRE) sought to summarily dismiss the complaints because “they, for the most part, involved a monetary dispute between the insurer’s appraiser and the shop’s appraiser, and I don’t think it’s in the Board’s purview to be getting involved in monetary disputes between appraisers.”

Starbard and Johnson teamed up to explain that many of the complaints were related to an insurer’s outright refusal to pay for OEM-required repair procedures, a clear violation of 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e), which reads:

The appraiser shall itemize the cost of all parts, labor materials, and necessary procedures required to restore the vehicle to pre-accident condition and shall total such items.

Chairman Michael Donovan asked if the motion was to move forward with the 100 complaints, but Starbard clarified that his motion related only to the first complaint…and that he fully intended to review each one individually because “I think this person deserves the due process of us reviewing them. He put the time in to submit all these complaints, so the least we can do is read them – even if we’re going to screw him over by sweeping it all under the rug. I don’t care how long it takes.”

Refusal to negotiate, failure to identify a company that will perform a sublet for the amount paid, refusing OEM requirements – the ADALB revisited these topics through 36 of the complaints,

continued on pg. 16