No Way Around OE Procedures: Shops Can’t Avoid Liability

by Sean G. Preston, Esq – Coverall Law

The call usually starts the same way. A shop owner, frustrated after going back and forth with an insurer, asks me: “Sean, can’t I just have the customer sign something? A hold harmless form or waiver? The insurer won’t pay for the OEM-mandated safety inspection, but I don’t want to lose the job or upset the customer.”

It’s a fair question, and it’s one I hear often. Insurers have gotten comfortable saying, “We don’t pay for that,” whether “that” is a required post-repair scan, an ADAS calibration or even structural welds. Shops are left stuck between the insurer’s refusal and the OEM’s clear repair instructions, wondering if there’s some paperwork that can protect them if they go along with the insurer.

The reality is: there isn’t. No signature on a piece of paper can shield a repairer from liability if they release an unsafe vehicle. And the risk doesn’t stop with the customer who signed off on it. That car will likely change hands, carry family members, share highways with other motorists and interact with pedestrians. Once a shop skips an OEM procedure, the liability web extends to anyone who might be harmed down the road.

That’s why this conversation is so important. There’s no way around OE procedures – and shops need to understand why a hold harmless agreement won’t work, why insurers don’t carry the liability for shortcuts and why the safest and only defensible position is to follow OEM standards every time.

OEM Procedures as the Legal and Practical Standard

Most collision repairers have heard of the John Eagle case. It shook the industry back in 2017, and for good reason: a Texas jury held a shop largely responsible for life-altering injuries suffered by Matthew and Marcia Seebachan after their Honda Fit failed catastrophically in a collision. The shop had panel-bonded a replacement roof instead of welding it as Honda’s OEM procedures required.

What’s often less understood is why the jury placed so much blame on the shop. It wasn’t simply that the repair deviated from the OEM bulletin. It was that the deviation represented a reckless disregard for safety – the legal definition of gross negligence. The plaintiffs’ expert explained that adhesive instead of welds compromised the vehicle’s crash energy management, and the jury agreed that this made the crash far worse than it should have been. That single decision by the shop became the central cause of the Seebachans’ injuries.

This is the lesson the industry still struggles to internalize: OEM procedures are not just suggestions, they are the standard of care. In court, no insurer’s directive and no “we’ve always done it this way” practice will carry more weight than the manufacturer’s documented repair instructions. Judges and juries look to the OEM as the expert on how its vehicles must be repaired. If a shop departs from those instructions, it owns the consequences – not the insurer who refused to pay, not the customer who signed a release, but the shop that put an unsafe vehicle back on the road.

And the stakes are even higher today. With advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) now standard in most vehicles, failing to perform OEM-specified calibrations or inspections can silently disable safety features designed to prevent or mitigate crashes. As recent testing has shown, a miscalibrated system can appear functional but fail to activate when needed – turning what should be a near miss into a serious collision. Just as in John Eagle, the liability falls on the repairer who cut the corner, not on the insurer who pushed them to do it.

Why ‘Recommendations’ Are Really Requirements

OEM repair documentation sometimes says a procedure is “required,” other times “recommended.” Insurers seize on that difference to argue that a “recommendation” is optional – something they don’t need to pay for, and something a shop can skip. That argument is wrong, and dangerous.

The reason for the different wording comes down to context. When an OEM says “require,” it’s usually addressing a technical necessity – welds, calibrations, structural integrity – where Magnuson-Moss warranty law isn’t in play. When they say “recommend,” it’s often to avoid running afoul of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on branded parts or dealer-only service unless those parts or services are provided free of charge. Using the softer word “recommend” shields OEMs from warranty tie-in accusations, but it doesn’t change the engineering reality: the step is necessary for safe vehicle performance.

For repairers, that distinction is meaningless. In court, both “require” and “recommend” function as the legal standard of care. If you skip either, and that omission contributes to a later crash or injury, liability falls on the shop.

Think of it this way: OEMs also “recommend” regular oil changes. No responsible shop would advise a customer to ignore them. The same applies to scans, calibrations, or welds – “recommend” is the OEM’s legal workaround, not permission to cut corners.

When it comes to safety and liability, “recommend” really means “require.” Always.

You Cannot Shake Gross Negligence

When a shop skips an OEM procedure, it isn’t just making a mistake. The law views it as something far more serious: gross negligence. Unlike ordinary negligence – a simple lapse in judgment – gross negligence is a reckless indifference to the safety of others. Courts often equate it to wanton or willful misconduct: knowing the danger exists and choosing to proceed anyway.

That’s the key distinction. Shops are the experts. They know what the OEM procedures say. They understand that skipping a post-repair scan, a weld or an ADAS calibration puts not only the customer, but everyone else on the road, at risk. When that knowledge is ignored, the law doesn’t see an accident – it sees a conscious disregard for human safety.

And here’s the heart of it: a waiver can sometimes cover ordinary negligence, but it can never cover gross negligence. Think about it this way: when I take my kids to a trampoline park, I sign a release acknowledging they might twist an ankle or bump a knee. That’s ordinary negligence – the everyday risks of play. But what if the trampoline park decided to light the trampolines on fire and still let kids jump? That’s gross negligence – reckless, wanton, willful – and no signature in the world would protect them.

Courts consistently reject attempts to contract around gross negligence because public policy demands it. Otherwise, we’d be sanctioning reckless behavior that puts lives at risk. In collision repair, releasing a car without following OEM procedures is no different. It isn’t just about one customer. The ripple effect of an unsafe repair can reach:

•  A subsequent buyer who never knew about the shortcut,

•  Family members or passengers riding in the vehicle, or

•  Other motorists and pedestrians when a compromised safety system silently fails.

This is why hold harmless agreements are worthless in this context. Gross negligence cannot be waived. If you knowingly release an unsafe car, the liability sticks to you – and the law will treat that choice as wanton or willful disregard for the lives of others.

The Insurer Conflict: “We Don’t Pay for That”

Every shop has heard the phrase: “We don’t pay for that.” Insurers use it as a catch-all to deny procedures – especially when the OEM labels them “recommended.” The result is that shops are left cornered, staring down three bad options:

1. Eat the cost themselves, eroding already thin margins,

2. Bill the customer, who often lacks the funds or assumes insurance will pay, or

3. Skip the step, hoping nothing goes wrong.

That last option is where the real danger lies. Skipping an OEM-mandated inspection, calibration or repair procedure doesn’t shift liability to the insurer – it leaves the shop holding the bag. If the vehicle fails, the lawsuits will come against the repairer, not the carrier who denied payment. Courts, juries and the public expect the shop to be the expert and to protect safety, no matter what an insurer says.

And lawmakers are beginning to recognize this imbalance. In recent years, multiple states have introduced bills or debated measures aimed at requiring OEM procedures or strengthening accountability when insurers pressure shops to cut corners. The momentum reflects a public policy truth that should already guide every repairer: unsafe repairs endanger everyone, not just the paying customer.

That’s why “We don’t pay for that” cannot be the end of the story. For shops, the legal and ethical response must always be the same: “We don’t skip that.”

Consumer Education: Why It’s Non-Negotiable

Shops can’t assume that customers understand the stakes. Most vehicle owners believe their insurance company decides what’s “necessary,” and they trust that if something isn’t covered, it must not be important. That’s why it falls on the repairer to set the record straight.

The message needs to be simple:

•  OEMs are the experts. They designed and tested the vehicle, and their documented procedures are the only authoritative source on how it must be repaired.

•  Insurer denials don’t change the laws of physics. A car won’t absorb crash energy differently, and an ADAS system won’t self-calibrate, just because an adjuster says the step isn’t payable.

•  Unsafe repairs put lives at risk. Not only the customer’s family, but future owners, passengers and everyone else on the road can be endangered if OEM standards are ignored.

For shops, this conversation can feel awkward – but it is one of the most powerful forms of protection. When customers understand that insurer denials don’t make a repair optional, they are more likely to push back with their carrier, and they are less likely to blame the shop if payment becomes a dispute.

A clear script helps keep the message consistent:

“We can’t legally or ethically skip these steps. The manufacturer says they are necessary for your safety. If your insurer won’t pay, we’ll help you pursue that — but we won’t release a vehicle unsafe for you or for the public.”

This isn’t just about managing liability – it’s about creating informed consumers who understand that safe repairs aren’t negotiable.

Shop Survival: The Action Plan

If insurers won’t pay and waivers won’t protect you, what can shops do? The answer is to shift from defense to offense – by controlling the documentation, the message and the strategy.

•  Document refusals. Every time an insurer denies an OEM procedure, put it in writing. Reference the OEM bulletin, attach it to your file and note that the insurer has chosen not to reimburse. This paper trail is one of your strongest defenses if a dispute escalates.

•  Stand firm. Adopt a clear policy: “We don’t do unsafe repairs.” Make it part of your culture, your estimates and your customer conversations. This isn’t about being difficult – it’s about making safety non-negotiable.

•  Frame it as public safety. Don’t just talk about liability or shop survival. Position your stance as protecting the community: every properly repaired vehicle makes the roads safer for families, passengers and other drivers. This framing builds credibility with customers and lawmakers alike.

•  Leverage legislative momentum. Several states have begun moving toward laws that require OEM procedures or restrict insurer interference. Even if those bills aren’t law everywhere yet, they signal a growing recognition that safe repairs must be mandated. Use that trend to reinforce your stance with both customers and insurers.

•  Build network defense. No shop should fight this battle alone. Work with trade associations, industry coalitions and attorneys who understand the collision industry. Collective pushback – whether through shared documentation, legal action, or lobbying – is far more powerful than one shop trying to stand up to a carrier by itself.

Shops that put these pieces in place don’t just survive insurer denials – they protect themselves, their customers and their communities.

Conclusion: Safety Isn’t Waivable

At the end of the day, OEM compliance is not optional. Liability doesn’t stop with the person who signed the repair order – it follows the vehicle wherever it goes, to every future owner, every passenger and every other driver on the road.

That’s why gross negligence can never be waived. Skipping OEM steps, whether at an insurer’s insistence or to save a customer money, isn’t a paperwork issue – it’s a willful disregard for safety that puts the shop squarely in the category of gross negligence. Courts know it, juries know it, and the public expects better.

Insurers may continue to be short-sighted, focused only on shaving costs in the moment. But shops can’t afford to play that game. The risks are too high, and the liability is too real.

The only safe, ethical and legally defensible position is to follow OEM procedures every time. The shop that insists on doing so isn’t just protecting its own business – it’s protecting its customer, its community and everyone who shares the road.

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