Collision Repairers Await Long Overdue Labor Rate Solution

by Alana Quartuccio

The new year is here, and the biggest thing on the minds of Massachusetts collision repairers is the anticipation of a long-awaited solution to a dire and debilitating problem in the form of a suppressed $40-$45 per hour, on average, labor rate. 

2025 was a big year for Massachusetts collision repairers! After decades of fighting for much needed labor rate reform, collision repairers finally were granted a seat at the table in the discussion. One year ago, the industry celebrated a big victory in the form of legislation that established the formation of the Auto Body Labor Rate Advisory Board (ABLRAB), which included three representatives from the auto body industry and members from the insurance industry and other related stakeholders. After a year of research and deliberation, the board worked to meet its goal of submitting a final report of labor rate recommendations to the Division of Insurance before the end of the year. 

In preparation of finalizing their report, the ABLRAB held a virtual meeting on November 24 which gave all the Board members who submitted written recommendations an opportunity to vocalize their ideas. 

Serving as the consumer advocate on the Board, Sean Kane (Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.) pointed out that “ultimately, what consumers want and need out of repair is accessibility. They want it done in a timely fashion. They need quality and safe repairs. Those things are key and at the forefront. Affordability is certainly also a big aspect as everything costs more than it once did.” 

He recognized that the auto body labor reimbursement rate is artificially suppressed and called out the discrepancy between auto body and mechanical repair rates. “If you compare the work that is being done on today’s modern automobiles, what’s the difference between a technician performing mechanical labor at the rate they are paid and the reimbursement rate on the auto body labor side? It’s equally as complex and requires more and more training and expertise.” 

Kane recommended that “the Board consider looking at the prevailing rates for mechanical services as a baseline for auto body labor rate, because the two are becoming much more equivalent.” Understanding the dangers of not fixing vehicles correctly, Kane asked, “Can we create something that doesn’t create a disincentive to repair cars right?” 

As one of the three auto body industry representatives on the Board, Brian Bernard (Total Care Accident Repair; Raynham) shared a variable rate solution that would establish a minimum rate to “put a patch on the hemorrhaging that’s going on in this industry,” with the hopes of sending a better message to retain and entice people to explore careers in the industry. 

Bernard proposed variability for shops that do invest in training technicians and equipment, so they can “get the minimum rate but should be eligible to charge what they can get in the market.” With the minimum rate, Bernard also believes there should be a maximum rate which would “provide a more stable set of premiums from insurers.” He also pointed to proposed legislation in HB 1260 “that would set up a methodology for how a repairer could validate their rate.” He explained that if a shop’s customers “in a true free market recognize a shop’s rate, it shouldn’t have to compete with those under contract at a different shop with stipulations that don’t apply.”

Matthew Ciaschini (Full Tilt Auto Body; West Hatfield) based his recommendations on technicians’ wages while also factoring in labor burden and what is considered an acceptable profit margin for an auto body shop. He also recommended a rolled out plan which would “be more palatable for the insurance industry and less burdensome on the consumer.” 

Rick Starbard (Rick’s Auto Collision; Revere) highlighted the urgency for change “as this game we’re playing has gone on for too long” and cut right to the chase, stating that auto body repair “should be right in line with the mechanical industry.” Starbard proposed a plan that would “slowly roll out until we get to reality” that starts at a minimum of $80 per hour. From there, he proposed the idea of “immediately working on increasing the standards to be a registered repair shop, because, quite frankly, there are none.” Following the minimum of $80 per hour, Starbard recommends “raising to $100 after the first year and $120 after the second year” with further increases based on the consumer pricing index. 

Christopher Stark (Massachusetts Insurance Federation) spoke on behalf of the three insurance representatives who submitted a combined recommendation. He implied skepticism by stating “there have been no requirements for profit and loss statements by these shops, so that we can actually understand the level of the problem we may or may not be up against.” As for the recommendations, Stark indicated his agreement of the idea to establish a process rather than “an actual statutory labor rate.”

Serving as the Board’s economist, John Kwoka (Neal F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of Economics, Northeastern University) addressed the problem between the collision repair and insurance industries. “It seems quite clear to me that there’s an imbalance between the ability of body shops to obtain reasonable rates and that which the insurers will agree to.” He agreed with others that an immediate increase should take place along with the creation of a mechanism that could allow the rate to increase over time based on quality of work. 

David Brown (Bill Diluca Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc.; Andover), who represented the State Automobile Dealers Association, spoke to the unfairness between the mechanical and auto body rates. “Body shops get paid at a lower rate than a mechanical shop for doing identical repairs. I don’t see how that is fair.” He stated the labor rate for auto body should be based on the average Massachusetts mechanical rate of $106.70.” 

On behalf of the business community, JC Burton (Maven Construction) recognized the changes auto body repairers have had to contend with, due to the complexity of modern day vehicles. “They have to become electricians. They have to become mechanics in order to do body work, and we need to pay them as the artisans that they are.” 

Peter Smith (MAPFRE) attempted to challenge the idea that establishing a minimum reimbursement rate will help keep people in the industry, claiming “that does not necessarily guarantee technicians are going to receive a minimum established wage for their work” or guarantee a set wage for collision repair students at vocational schools. He claimed the labor rate surveys sent to the body shops and insurance carriers “show that there is an active and vibrant market at work. The legislature should not interfere and allow those market factor forces to continue to achieve healthy competition, which helps, in turn, to create competitive pricing.” 

The Board planned to meet on December 22 to finalize the report which will include recommendations from the Board members as well as at least a dozen others from auto body shop owners and other Massachusetts industry professionals. 

Stay tuned to New England Automotive Report as we will continue to report on this developing story as more details become available. 

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