ADALB Questions Where Oversight Ends and Responsibility Begins

by Chasidy Rae Sisk

As the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) continues navigating increasingly complex questions surrounding modern vehicle repairs, its September 1 meeting repeatedly returned to a deceptively simple question: What is actually within the Board’s authority to fix?

From estimating system configurations and ADAS research to reimbursement disputes, aftermarket parts and complaints alleging inadequate repair procedures, Board members wrestled with where regulatory enforcement ends and negotiation, consumer involvement and individual business responsibility begin. At the same time, Chairman Donald E. d’Entremont continued reinforcing the themes that have defined his tenure thus far – evidence, documentation, good faith and communication.

Attorney Michael Powers then provided an update on the permanent Auto Body Labor Reimbursement Rate Advisory Board created through the amendment to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 175 discussed extensively at the ADALB’s July meeting. Powers, who served as co-chair of the previous Auto Body Labor Rate Special Commission, has now been appointed by the Commissioner and Division of Insurance to serve as a co-chair of the new permanent Advisory Board. The remaining appointments were still pending as of September 1.

Turning to “Other Business,” d’Entremont revisited the counterfeit airbag concerns he introduced in July. Rather than simply alerting the industry to individual safety concerns as they arise, the Chairman suggested establishing a relationship with the appropriate federal transportation safety agency so the ADALB could receive relevant information and briefings and potentially serve as a conduit for sharing those concerns with Massachusetts’ regulated community.

“Information is key in communication,” Board member Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) agreed. “Sometimes, there’s value just to us telegraphing things.”

Board member Peter Smith (MAPFRE) suggested that the Board also establish communication with the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), particularly regarding salvage vehicles and an outdated regulatory requirement involving inspection stickers. Under 540 CMR 19, an appraiser encountering loss-related damage that renders a vehicle unsafe is supposed to discuss the issue with the owner and seek permission to replace the inspection sticker with a temporary defect sticker, Smith explained. Yet, the modern electronic inspection system makes it practically impossible for appraisers to obtain or issue those stickers.

“It seems to be an incongruence between the two regulatory bodies and [a] circumstance where technology has outpaced practical functionalities,” d’Entremont observed. The Board unanimously agreed to reach out to the federal transportation safety agency and RMV in hopes of developing relationships that may facilitate communication and help address areas of common concern.

During the review of 16 complaints, eight were dismissed, three were tabled, and the Board unanimously voted to move forward on five. Only three disputes elicited dissension amongst Board members, one of which resulted in a tie vote due to Board member Carl Garcia (Carl’s Collision Center; Fall River) abstaining.

During public comment, Jeff White (North Andover Auto Body; North Andover) urged the ADALB to consider whether licensed Massachusetts appraisers should be required to research ADAS requirements when preparing appraisals, arguing that consumers rely on appraisers to identify the procedures necessary to safely repair increasingly complex vehicles. White also revisited concerns about insurer estimating system configurations, particularly settings that treat bumper covers as the first major refinish panel.

While repairers can negotiate and manually correct those calculations, he questioned what happens to consumers who choose not to repair their vehicles and instead retain the insurance payment. “The consumer is getting hurt, not necessarily the body shop,” White stressed.

The discussion exposed differing views about what an initial appraisal should represent. Johnson maintained that repairers should focus on running their businesses, negotiating necessary procedures and ensuring they are properly compensated to repair vehicles, while White argued that consumers who do not repair may be inadequately indemnified if the initial appraisal does not accurately reflect the loss.

MABA Executive Director Lucky Papageorg echoed White’s concerns, arguing that licensed appraisers should not have their professional judgment restricted by insurer-level estimating configurations. He also challenged the Board on paint blending allowances and other practices he believes leave shops and consumers shortchanged.

When a Board member suggested the association needed to spend more time educating members about matters outside the ADALB’s scope, Papageorg pushed back: “It’s not outside of your scope to enforce the regulation.” d’Entremont acknowledged that some regulatory language may warrant review, noting that words such as “should” and “may” can create ambiguity when it comes to enforcement.

The ADALB is scheduled to reconvene on November 10 at 11am. Information pertaining to the ADALB’s meeting schedule and planned agenda is typically posted by the Friday prior to the meeting at bit.ly/ADALBagendas. Don’t miss detailed coverage of the meeting, only available MABA’s members-only newsletter, Damage Report.

MABA members are strongly encouraged to listen to the recording of the September 1 meeting in the Members Only portal at the top of the homepage at massautobody.org for a glimpse into the inner workings of the ADALB. View the meeting agenda at bit.ly/ADALB090126.

Want more? Check out the October 2026 issue of New England Automotive Report!