The Automotive Service Association (ASA) and Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) testified before the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) Property-Casualty Insurance Committee on NCOIL’s model laws on auto airbag fraud and motor vehicle crash parts and repair proposals.

Both organizations said they oppose the use of salvage airbags. NCOIL’s airbag fraud proposal left open the option of using salvage airbags in collision-repaired vehicles. While the use of salvage airbags can reduce costs, the two groups said safety could be severely compromised and that shop owners could be placed at risk for installing salvage airbags.

“The use of salvaged airbags is still rigorously debated within the industry due to safety and liability concerns and to date there is no conclusive proof that salvaged airbags are consistently as safe as new OEM replacements,” said Aaron Schulenburg, executive director of SCRS. “Many of the OEM’s have provided very stern warnings about the safety hazards involved in the use of salvaged replacement airbags, which would require any facility a great deal of liability by not heeding the precaution from the vehicle manufacturer.”

ASA member Harry Moppert, owner of Moppert Brothers Collision Services Group in Morton, Pa., testified on behalf of ASA. Regarding the airbag fraud model law, he said: “Although the proposed model legislation before your committee includes elements that make some significant improvements to the current law, it fails to address a critical issue; salvage airbags should not be used in vehicle repair … Repairers want to use original equipment manufacturer (OEM) airbags where reliability and performance are tested, warranted and proven.”

ASA recommends that all shops inquire with their insurance carriers before installing salvage airbags in vehicles regarding their coverage and increases in rates and get this information in writing.

In comments on the NCOIL Motor Vehicle Crash Parts and Repair bill, ASA said it supports state disclosure laws that require insurers and auto collision facilities to obtain the express written consent of vehicle owners before installing replacement crash parts.

Moppert said, “Aftermarket crash parts, certified or not, do not assure consumers or repairers that they are equal to OEM. The quality and safety requirements, particularly for offshore parts, may or may not be evident for certified aftermarket parts. Parts certification in the United States has been very limited in scope. With 3 percent or less of the aftermarket parts being certified, there is little assurance from any data on quality and safety that can be gleaned for policy discussions. If the committee opts to pursue the Model Crash Parts and Repair Act, ASA suggests that you limit the scope of this proposal to a formal consumer notice and written consent process applicable to any parts used in the repair, whether they are OEM, aftermarket, certified aftermarket or salvage.”

Schulenburg said, “Automotive repair facilities are not, by virtue, a part of the business of insurance and are regulated by different entities. SCRS believes that including requirements for automotive repair facilities in the same regulation as those that address insurance regulation blur the lines between two non-related industries and dilutes enforcement for the consumer. SCRS does believe that legislation requiring that all labor, parts and materials necessary to effect the repair are to be reimbursed for under the insurance policy would be beneficial protection for the consumer.”