| As used herein . . .
“A/M Parts” are defined as Replacement Body Parts
not manufactured by the Original Manufacturer of the subject vehicle
or a licensed authorized sub-contractor of the Original Manufacturer.
“OEM Parts” are defined as Replacement Body Parts
manufactured by the Original Manufacturer of the subject vehicle or by
a licensed authorized sub-contractor thereof.
- The most appropriate body parts to be employed in the repair of a
consumer’s vehicle are parts manufactured by, or on behalf of,
the vehicle’s original manufacturer (OEM).
- A/M Parts do NOT meet “OEM” standards for fit, finish,
corrosion protection, construction or safety.
- OEM Parts Manufacturers provide Material Safety Data Sheets as Required
by OSHA and in a form and format specified by OSHA. A/M Parts Manufacturers
Do NOT provide MSDS info.
- There is growing evidence that Taiwan manufacturers are recycling
Radioactive Scrap Metal. Absent legitimate MSDS information, there is
No Assurance that A/M Parts are safe for the US Market. Though given
little coverage in the US media, this problem has been exposed by the
- There is No mechanism for notification or the recall of dangerous
or defective A/M Parts.
- A/M Hoods have come open at hi-way speeds, blocking the view of the
driver, causing body and glass damage to the host vehicle, putting at
risk the safety of the occupants of the host vehicle as well as that
of the occupants of the vehicle with which the host vehicle shared the
- A/M Parts are Not warranted by the vehicle’s original manufacturer
and may compromise the remaining warranty on the undamaged portion of
- According to Consumer Surveys, a vehicle repaired with A/M Parts will
sustain a post-repair reduction in resale value (Diminished Value)
of approximately DOUBLE that which would be expected of vehicles repaired
with OEM Parts.
- The claims payment savings realized by insurance companies by mandating
the use of A/M Parts have not translated to lower auto insurance premiums.
Mandating the use of A/M Parts in 1st party physical damage claim situations
- where the policy contract fails to specifically assign that authority
to the insurer - has been determined to be an act of Criminal Fraud
(Avery v State Farm).
- When insurance companies pay only for A/M Parts, the insurance industry
pockets all the savings, the consumer adsorbs the immediate excess loss
in value and risk of potential injury and, the repair facility assumes
the down-line liability. This is not equitable.
- In Minnesota, where the mandated use of A/M Body Parts had been virtually
banned, insureds have enjoyed a pattern of auto insurance premium rate
reductions. State Farm, the state’s largest insurer, supplemented
their rate reductions with a $13.2 Million premium surplus refund to
Minnesota policyholders. Click
Here to read more on this point.
- Attempts to collect on A/M Parts Limited Warranties commonly involve
a frustrating convoluted avenue of finger-pointing between the insurance
carrier, repair facility, A/M Parts distributor and A/M Parts manufacturer.
For the reasons outlined above, the Insurance Consumer Advocate Network
Does Not endorse, approve or condone the use of A/M Parts in the repair
of Consumers’ Vehicles. We are opposed to the practice of insurance
companies mandating the use of A/M Parts without the contractual authority
to do so. It is our opinion that the policyholder should been made aware
of the insurer’s right to mandate the use of A/M Parts PRIOR to
the covered event that precipitated a physical damage claim.
After Market Body Parts - - Hazardous
- - Compromises OEM Warranty - - Compounds Diminshed Value