Industry Advice Ask Mike: How Can Shops Talk to Customers About Invoking the Right to Appraisal?

with Mike Anderson

This month, we “Ask Mike” to share his thoughts on the collision repair facility’s role in educating consumers about the Right to Appraisal clause. We at Hammer & Dolly hope you find the following exchange useful, and we encourage you to reach out to us if you have a question for Mike on this or any industry-related matter that he can answer in a future issue.

Hammer & Dolly: I believe it’s fair to assume that the collision industry at large is aware of what the Right to Appraisal clause, or RTA, is. But to ensure that our readers have a clear understanding, why is the RTA something that shops could suggest to consumers as an option if things go wrong with the settlement of their claims and they need to address an issue with their insurer during the repair process?

Mike Anderson: First, many people in the industry try to position the Right to Appraisal clause as a way for a shop to get paid, and I think that’s the wrong approach. A shop getting paid is the byproduct, not the primary purpose, of the Right to Appraisal. It is there to protect consumers when they don’t have a path toward a resolution without going to court. The RTA can be used in multiple situations, such as when a carrier doesn’t want to pay to repair their vehicle properly, doesn’t want to pay for a rental car or doesn’t want to give the consumer a proper total loss valuation.

It’s also beneficial to the judicial system because it helps the court avoid being clogged up with things that may be considered minor in the grand scheme of things. Rhode Island is the only state I’m aware of that has RTA for claimants, but I think it’s absolutely needed as much for claimants as it is for insureds.

I’ll give you a very good example. My nephew is insured in Maryland. A driver covered by another insurance company ran into the back of his vehicle, so he was a claimant. The person who hit him only carried the minimum amount of coverage, which was $15,000. The amount to repair my nephew’s vehicle was around $14,800. He also had a $1,000 rental bill. The at-fault party’s carrier said it wasn’t going to pay for their rental bill because the other person was already maxed out on their coverage.

To me, that figure shouldn’t include the rental car costs; it should only include the property damage. But even if that was the case, there’s still only $200 that could be applied to a $1,000 bill. That’s just one example of why the RTA is absolutely critical for the consumer.

H&D: How prevalent is the RTA in 2026? Are we seeing it used more across the board?

MA: Absolutely. I’m seeing more and more people utilizing it, but I think a lot of people are uneducated about how to do it and don’t understand the process. Consumers must be made more aware of the option, as they’re the ones who must invoke it. The shop can support its customers by educating them about it and providing documentation, but it can’t invoke it for them.

H&D: No consumer wants to end up at a body shop. They’re at that facility because something bad has happened, and they want the car repaired and to drive away as soon as possible. However, conflicts with insurers do come up – whether it’s a parts delay or several other scenarios we could name – so shops need to be at the front line of educating the consumer. What are some ways you’re seeing shops approach the RTA gently enough to make it successful for customers?

MA: You’re right. Most consumers just want to get their car fixed and not have to deal with these things, so there’s a right way and a wrong way to present it. You really need to take the time to educate your consumers – and do it in a way that’s not scary to them. At the end of the day, success comes down to a shop being willing to walk them through the whole process and, if necessary, handhold them.

H&D: Are there any misconceptions about RTA within the industry? Are there things that it does very well but will not be successful in accomplishing for a consumer in these sorts of situations?

MA: Obviously, the insurance company picks somebody to represent them, and the consumer picks somebody to represent them. If they can’t work it out, it goes to an umpire. Then, if the umpire and one of the other representatives agree, making it two out of three, that serves as the judgment. It’s my understanding that more and more of these situations are having to go to an umpire these days.

As far as misconceptions, I’d stress again that it’s the consumer, not the shop, that moves the RTA process forward. Also, there are some risks that shops should consider. For one thing, a DRP shop likely isn’t going to actively promote RTA to its customers, as that could be problematic for the insurance partnerships. At the same time, I’ve seen some independent shops get steered against heavily after too many RTAs from their customers. That said, I’ve seen people win multiple times in court, which has prompted some carriers to pay for more things initially to avoid having to deal with multiple RTAs. So, it serves an additional benefit by encouraging insurers to change their behavior, which is positive for consumers and repairers alike.

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