The Paint and Materials Committee gave an update on its continued research on paint and material calculators at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) held in April in Phoenix.
The committee’s research was kickstarted last year by a study conducted by Steve Lanza of Richfield Associates that indicated that 94 percent of the industry agreed that the current paint and materials compensation system is a poor methodology. Also, that repairer compensation has not kept up with cost increases in paint and materials. The study also indicated that 78 percent of the industry agreed that a paint and materials calculation system is necessary to keep pace with future cost increases and heightened industry standards.
Since the release of last year’s study, the research has continued by examining the use of paint and materials calculators in several markets. More than 1,000 large and small repairs were evaluated at 20-plus shops using varying paint brands and paint and material calculations.
The research continues to try to answer the following questions:
• Is the process of “itemizing” all paint and material products used in the repair process a fair and accurate solution for all parties involved?
• Does research support the idea that identifying certain materials outside of the current paint and material allowance will allow fair compensation both now and for new, innovative products in the future?
“Although the original study indicated that most insurers have, on some or all occasions, paid off a detailed invoice from a paint and materials calculator, few repairers are using them,” Lanza concluded. “Increased industry awareness and collaboration are needed to identify strengths and weaknesses of paint and material calculators if the situation is to improve.”
More information:
ORIGINAL STUDY: Majority of Industry Feels Current Paint and Materials Formula is Poor Methodology, Study Reveals
