The quality of aftermarket parts certified by the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) is not as good as original equipment parts, according to a member survey conducted by the California Autobody Association.

In a recent article published by the L.A. Times regarding Assembly Bill 1200, insurers called criticism of the use of aftermarket parts a “red herring” because those parts are “at least as high in quality as the original parts.”

This statement was made in response to concerns that AB 1200 will allow insurers to legally steer claimants to their network shops, and by contract, most network shops are required to use cheaper aftermarket parts whenever possible.

During the first quarter of 2009, the California Autobody Association (CAA) surveyed its members with several specific questions regarding CAPA Certified Crash Parts. CAPA aftermarket parts are generally regarded by the insurance industry as the best of all aftermarket crash parts.

The original purpose of the CAA survey was to gather information regarding Senate Bill 350. As introduced, SB 350 would have given CAPA parts the legal presumption of being equivalent in terms of fit, function and finish to original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts. SB 350 has been amended and is now a two-year bill.

The basis of the survey was to discern whether CAPA parts were equivalent to the OEM part being replaced in terms of fit, function and finish. Two key findings were:

• Nearly half of all respondents (49 percent) said that three out of four aftermarket (CAPA) parts they receive were not equivalent to the OEM parts being replaced in terms of fit, function and finish. Fewer than 2 percent believed CAPA parts were always equivalent to OEM.

• Due to insurer’s network contract requirements, almost half of all respondents (43.8 percent) have installed aftermarket CAPA parts on customer’s cars that were not equivalent to OEM.

In order to protect consumers, state law prohibits insurers from requiring the use of any aftermarket parts unless “the parts are at least equal to the original equipment manufacturer parts in terms of kind, quality, safety, fit and performance.”

CAA said the goal of its member shops is to restore their customers’ damaged cars to pre-accident condition to the highest degree possible. Installing non-equivalent aftermarket parts contradicts that goal and places the insurer in a position of violating the above regulation, CAA said

Although the CAA aftermarket parts study confirms previous findings by the state’s Bureau of Automotive Repair, new car manufacturers and other collision industry experts, CAA said it believes that new information obtained in this study shows both a need to refine current regulations and develop new guidelines regarding required usage of aftermarket parts by insurers.

Summary of the findings

Usage: About 40 percent of respondents sell 10 to 50 CAPA parts per month. About 20 percent sell 50 to 100 CAPA parts per month, while 34 percent sell less than 10 parts per month.

Equivalency: 49 percent of respondents stated one out of every four CAPA parts purchased was equivalent to the genuine factory part. If manual percentage responses are considered, this increases to 73.8 percent. Only 1.3 percent found all CAPA parts they purchased to be equivalent.

Installation of non-equivalent CAPA parts: Many respondents have installed CAPA parts that were non-equivalent to OEM parts when required by either DRP agreement (43.8 percent), or the customer’s insurance policy (78.4 percent). This suggests that the state regulation that prohibits insurers from requiring non-equivalent aftermarket parts is being circumvented by both policy and DRP contract specifications, CAA said

Ancillary issues with CAPA Parts: Nearly 90 percent of respondents agreed that many of their customers are not aware of insurance policy provisions that require aftermarket parts until after they have an accident. CAA said legislation to enhance consumer awareness of these types of policy provisions is needed immediately.

Recommendations: About 70 percent of all respondents agreed that many changes need to be made regarding all aftermarket parts. For parts that are found to be non-equivalent, these changes include quick and nationwide decertification, compensation for inspection and handling of non-equivalent parts, and extension of consumer rental car coverage for delays caused by specification of non-equivalent parts, CAA said.