Who Decides What It Costs to Repair a Vehicle? Why Right to Appraisal Has Never Been More Important

by Justin Lewis

There are very few conversations I have more often today than the one that starts with a customer asking, “Why doesn’t my insurance company agree with what you say my car needs?”

It’s a fair question, and one that has become increasingly difficult to answer.

The customer has faithfully paid insurance premiums for years. They purchased a policy believing that if they were ever involved in an accident, their vehicle would be restored to its pre-loss condition. They choose a repair facility they trust, expecting the claims process to be relatively straightforward.

Instead, they find themselves caught between two very different conclusions.

The repair facility disassembles the vehicle, documents the damage, researches the OEM repair procedures, and develops a repair plan based on what the manufacturer requires to safely and properly restore the vehicle. The insurance company develops its estimate of the loss. Sometimes those two documents are relatively close. Increasingly, they are not.

Today, it is common for repair facilities to identify required operations that are not included in the insurer’s initial estimate. Pre- and post-repair scans, ADAS calibrations, corrosion protection, one time use components, destructive weld testing, structural inspections and manufacturer-required procedures are challenged with a frequency our industry has never experienced before. Many of these operations are even described to consumers as the shop’s cost of doing business rather than direct costs associated with repairing their specific loss.

That should concern every repair professional.

If an operation is required because a collision occurred, and that operation is necessary to restore the vehicle according to the manufacturer’s published repair procedures, is it really overhead? Or is it part of the actual cost of repairing the loss?

Those questions are no longer isolated disagreements. They have become routine, and as they become more common, consumers are increasingly asked to decide which professional they should believe. On one side is the insurance company they have trusted for years. On the other is the repair facility that will ultimately assume responsibility for restoring their vehicle.

That is an impossible decision for most consumers to make.

More importantly, it is a decision they should never have to make.

If reasonable professionals genuinely disagree about the amount of a loss, who should decide?

The repair facility?

The insurance company?

Or should there be an independent process that evaluates the evidence and determines the amount of the loss?

More than a century ago, the insurance industry answered that question by incorporating Right to Appraisal into many insurance policies. Appraisal was never intended to benefit repair facilities or disadvantage insurance companies. It was created because insurers recognized that disagreements over the amount of a loss were inevitable, and that policyholders deserved an alternative to litigation when those disagreements occurred.

The process itself is relatively simple. When the policyholder and the insurer disagree over the amount of a covered loss, each selects a competent appraiser. Those appraisers attempt to resolve the dispute. If they cannot, they select an umpire, and an agreement by any two of the three establishes the amount of the loss. Appraisal generally addresses the amount of the loss, not questions of coverage or liability.

One of the biggest misconceptions in our industry is that appraisal is a body shop tool.

It is not.

In fact, the repair facility is the only party that cannot invoke appraisal because the repair facility is not a party to the insurance contract. That right belongs exclusively to the policyholder and the insurance company. The shop’s role is not to demand appraisal or attempt to control the process. The shop’s role is to understand it well enough to recognize when it may be available and educate consumers about the rights contained within their own policy.

That distinction is incredibly important because I believe our industry’s responsibility has changed.

Twenty years ago, being a great collision repairer meant understanding how to repair vehicles. Today, that is only part of the job.

Modern vehicles have become extraordinarily sophisticated. OEM repair information is more comprehensive than ever. Vehicle construction has evolved. Advanced driver assistance systems require precise calibration. Manufacturers continue to publish new repair procedures as technology changes. At the same time, repair facilities have never carried more liability than they do today. When we return a vehicle to a customer, we own that repair. We own the workmanship. We own the decisions that were made throughout the repair process.

The insurance company does not assume that responsibility.

The repair facility does.

Yet, while repair complexity and liability have continued to increase, the claims environment has become more challenging than at any point in my career. The downward pressure on repair costs is real. Shops across the country routinely document required OEM procedures only to have those operations questioned, minimized or denied. Many of those decisions are no longer being made by someone who has physically inspected the vehicle. Instead, complex repair plans are increasingly reviewed through centralized claims operations by individuals evaluating photographs, estimate-line items and internal review guidelines from hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

Whether that model improves efficiency isn’t really the question.

The question is whether it creates more disagreements over the amount of a loss.

From what I’ve seen, the answer is yes.

When the person responsible for repairing the vehicle and accepting the liability reaches one conclusion, and the person responsible for determining what the insurer believes it owes under the policy reaches another, consumers deserve something better than simply choosing which opinion sounds more convincing.

They deserve a fair process.

That is why Right to Appraisal matters.

It’s also why understanding your state’s insurance regulations matters.

One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned through my work with the Washington Independent Collision Repair Association (WICRA) is that insurance is regulated by the states, not by the federal government. Every state has its own insurance code, fair claim settlement regulations, consumer protections, and, in many cases, laws governing appraisal. Those rules establish how claims are supposed to be handled and define many of the rights available to policyholders when disputes arise.

Unfortunately, many repair professionals spend years mastering OEM repair procedures without ever becoming familiar with the insurance regulations that govern the claims process in their own state. That knowledge gap doesn’t just affect repair facilities. It affects consumers.

A repair professional doesn’t need to interpret insurance contracts or provide legal advice. That’s not our role.

Our role is to recognize when a legitimate dispute exists, understand the framework surrounding that dispute, and help consumers ask informed questions. Have you reviewed your policy? Does it contain an appraisal provision? What does your state’s insurance code say about claim handling? Those questions don’t create conflict. They create informed consumers.

That’s why I believe understanding Right to Appraisal is becoming just as important as understanding OEM repair procedures.

Not because appraisal solves every disagreement.

Not because every claim belongs in appraisal.

And certainly not because it guarantees a larger payment.

It matters because it preserves balance.

As policy language continues to evolve, some insurers have narrowed appraisal provisions or removed them from certain policy forms altogether. Associations across the country have recognized what that could mean for consumers and have worked with legislators and regulators to preserve meaningful dispute resolution when legitimate disagreements arise. Those efforts are not about giving repair facilities another negotiating tactic. They are about ensuring that consumers retain access to an independent process before their only remaining option becomes litigation.

Over the last six years, I’ve had the opportunity to work with legislators, regulators, consumer advocates, repairers, appraisers and insurers while serving as president of WICRA. Those conversations have reinforced one simple idea that continues to shape my perspective.

This discussion has never really been about body shops.

It has never really been about insurance companies.

It has always been about consumers.

Consumers cannot exercise rights they don’t know they have, and repair professionals cannot educate consumers about rights they don’t understand themselves.

If we truly believe our responsibility is to restore vehicles safely and properly, then we also have a responsibility to understand the policies and regulations that determine whether those repairs are recognized, evaluated and ultimately paid for.

Right to Appraisal is not a weapon.

It is not a negotiating tactic.

It is not a body shop tool.

It is a consumer protection built into many insurance policies because the industry recognized long ago that reasonable people can disagree about the amount of a loss.

As collision repair continues to evolve, I believe the best repair facilities will not only understand how to repair increasingly sophisticated vehicles. They will also understand the insurance policies, state regulations and consumer protections that surround those repairs.

Because at the end of every claim is someone who simply wants their vehicle restored safely and properly.

They deserve a repair professional who understands both.

Want more? Check out the September 2026 issue of Hammer & Dolly!