A Call for Clarity: Strengthening the Right to Appraisal in Massachusetts
by Douglas Begin, AASP/MA Vice President
The relationship between auto body shops and insurance companies is a delicate dance, often strained by disagreements over the cost and scope of vehicle repairs.
In Massachusetts, we have a mechanism for resolving these disputes: the Right to Appraisal clause, a provision found in most collision and comprehensive insurance policies. While this clause is designed to protect both the insured and the insurer, its current application and regulation leaves much to be desired, creating a confusing and often unfair landscape for auto body professionals and their customers.
As members of the Massachusetts auto body community, we are on the front lines of this battle. Every day, we encounter low-ball estimates, unjustified denials of repair procedures and the constant pressure to compromise on quality to meet an insurer’s arbitrary figure. When an impasse is reached, the Right to Appraisal should be a clear, efficient path to a fair resolution. However, in practice, it is often a convoluted and burdensome process that lacks the robust regulation seen in other states.
Massachusetts’s Current Framework
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 175, Section 191A, lays the groundwork for the appraisal process. It states that if the insured and the company “fail to agree as to the amount of loss,” each party can select a “competent and disinterested appraiser.” The two appraisers then select a neutral umpire, appraise the loss, and if they fail to agree, submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two of the three determines the final amount of the loss. This sounds reasonable on the surface, but the devil is in the details – or rather, the lack thereof.
The regulations governing this process, primarily within 212 CMR 2.00, focus heavily on the licensing and conduct of appraisers. They mandate personal inspections, require itemized appraisals and prohibit conflicts of interest. However, they are largely silent on the specific procedures and timelines for invoking and executing the appraisal process when a dispute arises. This regulatory gap allows for inconsistencies and roadblocks that can delay repairs and financial settlements for months.
The Comparison: How Other States Do It Better
Contrast Massachusetts’s approach with states that have more explicit and consumer-friendly regulations. In Texas, for example, the Right to Appraisal is a well-known and actively utilized tool. The regulations are clearer on the process and empower both the consumer and the repair shop. Auto body shops in Texas are often active participants in helping customers invoke this right, sometimes even assisting with the cost of the independent appraiser to ensure a fair outcome. This shared commitment highlights a key difference: in Texas, the Right to Appraisal process is seen as a legitimate and accessible means of dispute resolution, not a legal quagmire.
Similarly, states like Rhode Island have explicit regulations aimed at protecting the consumer’s Right to Appraisal for auto damage disputes when a policyholder and insurer can’t agree on a repair cost. Each party hires a licensed, disinterested appraiser. The insurer’s appraiser must inspect the vehicle within four business days. If the appraisers can’t agree, they exchange proposals. If they are within 15 percent of each other, the loss is the midpoint. If not, they select a neutral umpire. The umpire’s decision, or an agreement by two of the three, is binding. If the final award exceeds the insurer’s initial offer by more than 25 percent, the insurer pays the policyholder’s appraisal costs. Otherwise, the cost of the umpire is split.
The Consequences of Ambiguity
For a Massachusetts consumer, the current system presents significant challenges. The time and resources required to navigate an appraisal dispute can be substantial. The costs of a third-party appraiser and an umpire are often split between the policyholder and the insurer. While this might seem fair, the initial financial burden can be a deterrent for a consumer already stressed by a car accident. This often leaves the auto body shop holding the bag leading the shop to either charge the owner, eating the cost of the needed procedure or worse producing a subpar repair where the liability falls on the repairer – and if a subsequent accident were to happen…We all remember the John Eagle case.
The ambiguity in our state’s regulations also allows for varying interpretations of what constitutes an “amount of loss.” Is it just parts and labor? Does it include crucial but often overlooked aspects like diagnostic scanning, proper welding procedures or the use of OEM parts to maintain a vehicle’s warranty and safety standards? Without clear, enforceable guidelines, these vital components of a quality repair are often the first to be disputed and the hardest to justify in an unregulated appraisal process.
A Path Forward
The collision repair community of Massachusetts has a critical role to play in advocating for a more transparent and equitable appraisal system. We must push for legislative and regulatory changes that provide clear, standardized procedures for invoking the Appraisal Clause. This includes:
• Defining “Amount of Loss: Regulations must be updated to explicitly include all necessary repair procedures and materials, including manufacturer-mandated processes and the use of OEM parts when required for safety and warranty.
• Standardizing the Process: We need clear timelines for each step of the appraisal in addition to repercussions for failure to adhere, from the initial demand to the final award. This would prevent insurers from dragging their feet and using delays as a tactic to force a settlement.
• Improving Consumer Education: We must work together to ensure that Massachusetts drivers are fully aware of their Right to Appraisal and the process involved. A well-informed consumer is our most powerful ally.
The Right to Appraisal is a powerful tool for ensuring fair compensation and quality repairs. However, in its current state, it is a blunt instrument that often fails to serve its intended purpose. By learning from other states and advocating for a more robust and clearly defined regulatory framework, we can transform the appraisal process from a point of contention into a genuine solution for auto repair disputes in Massachusetts.
Want more? Check out the September 2025 issue of New England Automotive Report!