Why Are We Still Arguing about Blend Time? A Legal, Technical and Historical Case for Full Reimbursement of Blend Operations

by Victor Fanikos and Coverall Law

Despite clear guidance from industry leaders and current estimating platforms, some appraisers are still refusing to negotiate full blend times, falling back on outdated practices and flawed interpretations of the law. Across Massachusetts, collision repair shops continue to hear the same tired response: “We only allow 50 percent blend for time calculation as the formula.”

What makes this even more frustrating is that CCC, the most widely used estimating system among both shops and insurers, has already removed the default 50 percent blend calculation. In direct response to real-world testing and feedback, CCC now instructs appraisers to use on-the-spot judgment to assess the actual labor required for blend operations.

Yet, appraisers still claim they cannot adjust blend time – arguing that doing so would amount to “modifying” a published guide. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e) and the CCC Guide to Estimating itself, which makes it clear that judgment-based evaluations are not only permitted, but expected.

The continued refusal to engage in good-faith negotiation over blend time isn’t just outdated – it’s a violation of both regulatory and contractual obligations. And the impact is twofold: not only are shops being denied fair compensation for the labor involved in blending, but they’re also being shorted the corresponding paint and materials required to perform the operation properly. These shortcuts come at a cost – not just in lost revenue, but in undermining the trust, quality and professionalism that collision repair shops work hard to maintain.

Massachusetts Regulation 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e) leaves no room for confusion: appraisers are required to itemize all labor, materials and necessary procedures needed to return a vehicle to its pre-accident condition. That includes blend operations – especially when they are essential to achieving a seamless refinish and avoiding visibly mismatched panels.

The regulation also makes clear that no appraiser may modify a published manual without prior negotiation. But let’s be clear – negotiating is not modifying. If the estimating system itself, like CCC (powered by MOTOR), says that blend time should be based on on-the-spot judgment, then the appraiser is following the manual when they negotiate. Refusing to do so is not compliance – it’s avoidance.

Further, the regulation allows either the shop appraiser or the insurance appraiser to reject the use of a fixed formula like dollars-times-hours, in which case they are to turn to a published manual or other documentation. In this situation, the Society of Collision Repair Specialists’ (SCRS) blend study and CCC’s revised instructions both qualify as valid sources.

So, if CCC has already removed its fixed 50 percent blend guideline, and the shop declines to accept the outdated default, the appraiser must engage in negotiation. Refusing to do so violates both the spirit and letter of 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e). For shops participating in Coverall Law’s Forever Forms program, such refusal may also expose the insurer and appraiser to liability under both M.G.L. c. 93A and c. 176D. Non-member shops may still file a formal complaint with the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB), though without the direct consumer assignment needed to trigger a 93A per se violation.

In 2022, SCRS published a comprehensive blend study that should have put the long-standing 50 percent blend time myth to rest once and for all. Conducted in collaboration with all five major refinish manufacturers and independently validated by DEKRA North America, the study produced clear, consistent and repeatable data: blending takes more time than a full panel refinish – not less.

On average, the study found that blend operations required 131.59 percent of the time it takes to perform a full refinish. This isn’t a small margin. It dismantles the long-accepted – but unsupported – practice of arbitrarily assigning only 50 percent of base refinish time to blend panels. The results were also consistent across all panel types, all major paint systems and all finishes, including solid colors, metallics and tri-stage applications.

The SCRS blend study is available for download at scrs.com and should be included in every supplement and negotiation involving blend time. It is the most current, collaborative and objective documentation available – and it directly supports the shop’s right to negotiate for time actually spent, rather than settle for outdated formulas that no longer reflect reality.

In October 2023, MOTOR, the publisher behind CCC’s estimating guide, officially removed the long-relied-upon 50 percent blend formula from its system. In response to Database Enhancement Gateway (DEG) Inquiry #36042, MOTOR stated plainly, “The current formula…does not necessarily reflect the many variations encountered with modern vehicle finishes.” Instead, they now direct that “estimated work time should defer to the judgment of an estimator or appraiser following an on-the-spot evaluation of the specific vehicle and refinish requirements.”

This is a major shift and one that brings estimating guidance in line with real-world repair conditions. Any appraiser who continues to deny blend time negotiations on the grounds that they are “just following CCC” is now ignoring CCC’s own updated directive. If they refuse to negotiate without a documented reason, they may also be in violation of Massachusetts law, specifically 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e) and M.G.L. c. 176D.

Dear Victor: Your Historical Insight

Despite overwhelming industry data, updated estimating guides and clear regulatory language, some appraisers still refuse to negotiate blend time — claiming they’re bound to outdated internal policies or restricted from “modifying” published guides. We wanted to know whether this 50 percent rule was ever something the ADALB formally adopted and how this issue has evolved from a regulatory standpoint. So we turned to Victor Fanikos, former legal advisor to the ADALB for perspective.

Victor’s Response

“To my knowledge, the ADALB never had any formal position on 50 percent blend time. It was something shops complained about going back decades, but I don’t recall the Board ever endorsing that number — and frankly, I don’t think it was ever our place to. The Board’s role was to make sure appraisers were doing their jobs according to the law, not enforcing insurer-created formulas.

The rule has always been the same: follow the manual. Today, the CCC Guide to Estimating — which is based on MOTOR — says blend time should be determined by on-the-spot judgment. That’s not an invitation to ignore it; it’s a directive to evaluate it properly. If an appraiser refuses to negotiate and says their hands are tied, that’s a violation of 212 CMR 2.04(1)(e) — plain and simple. And yes, a complaint should be filed.

If the Board does not act, then sue the insurer and the appraiser. That’s how this gets fixed. Shops need to bring these issues forward and put the facts in front of the Board. That’s how regulations evolve — when the Board understands how insurers are sidestepping the law.

And let’s be honest: no owner wants to drive around in a zebra. That’s what you get when a new panel doesn’t blend with the sun-faded one next to it. When appraisers deny blend time, they’re not just shorting the shop — they’re compromising the customer’s vehicle. That’s not acceptable, and it’s not compliant with either the estimating system or Massachusetts regulations.”

What Shops Should Do Now

Shops facing resistance on blend time must treat the negotiation as both a technical and legal process. When CCC instructs appraisers to use on-the-spot judgment, that opens the door for a fair conversation — one backed by documentation, including the SCRS blend study, manufacturer procedures and your actual material invoices. If the appraiser refuses to engage or defaults to the outdated 50 percent rule, document that refusal in writing and formally request their justification. Under Massachusetts law, they are obligated to provide a reason – silence is not an option.

If that negotiation fails, escalate. File a complaint with the ADALB and send a copy to the Division of Insurance. The attorneys at Coverall Law continue to hear repeated reports that the ADALB simply is not acting to see these issues resolved, so if your shop is enrolled in Coverall Law’s Forever Forms program, you may also issue a 93A demand letter to preserve your rights under Massachusetts consumer protection law.

Finally, don’t forget the customer. If blend time was denied without basis, issue a final bill reflecting the unpaid balance, and clearly explain the reason for the shortfall. Customers have a right to recover that amount from their insurer – and they should know that the only reason their vehicle might look mismatched is because the insurer refused to pay for a professional repair.

Want more? Check out the May 2025 issue of New England Automotive Report!