When Silence Becomes Complicity in Collision Repair
by Ken Miller, AASP/NJ President
The word complicit is commonly defined as being involved in wrongdoing through cooperation or, just as often, through silence.
It does not require intent, bad faith or direct action. It simply requires awareness of a problem and a decision to allow it to continue. That definition is increasingly relevant in today’s collision repair environment, where many of the most significant compromises to repair quality and vehicle safety occur not through overt misconduct but through quiet accommodation.
From a consumer’s perspective, the collision repair process appears straightforward. Their vehicle is damaged, a claim is filed, repairs are performed, and the car is returned. Most vehicle owners reasonably assume that means their vehicle was repaired properly, safely and in accordance with manufacturer requirements. What they do not see is the widening gap between what a proper repair requires and what an insurer agrees to reimburse. When that gap exists and the customer is not informed, silence begins to take on meaning.
Complicity in collision repair most often emerges when a repairer accepts an insurer-written estimate that omits required operations and proceeds without disclosure. Missing post-repair inspections, denied scanning or calibrations, incomplete refinishing steps or repair-versus-replace decisions that conflict with OEM procedures are no longer isolated issues. They are increasingly common. Experienced repairers recognize these omissions immediately. They understand what the repair procedures require, and they know when those procedures are not being paid for. Yet, in many cases, the repair moves forward without the vehicle owner ever being told that insurer reimbursement – not repair standards – dictated the final scope of work.
Sometimes, the shop absorbs the cost to maintain insurer relationships. Other times, the operation is altered or omitted altogether. In both scenarios, the customer remains unaware that critical decisions were driven by payment limitations rather than repair necessity. The customer believes a complete and proper repair was performed because no one told them otherwise.
The industry does not often say it out loud, but the concept of an “insurance-quality repair” is widely understood. It describes a repair shaped by what will be paid rather than what should be done. The problem is not that insurers take positions on reimbursement. The problem arises when repairers quietly adjust repair methodology to match those positions without informing the person who owns the vehicle. A customer cannot give informed consent to a compromised repair if they are never told a compromise exists. They cannot dispute a denial, seek appraisal or choose to pay out of pocket if the information never reaches them.
This issue becomes more pronounced in insurer-referred and DRP environments, where contractual agreements may include labor caps, excluded operations or procedural limitations. Entering into those agreements is not inherently improper. Failing to disclose their impact is. When customers are not told that a shop’s discretion is contractually constrained, they assume independent professional judgment is being exercised. In reality, key decisions may already be limited before the vehicle is even inspected. The outcome of the repair is affected, and the customer never knows why.
These situations are often dismissed as misunderstandings or training deficiencies, but that explanation no longer holds. Modern collision repairers are trained, informed and fully aware of OEM repair requirements. When known omissions go undisclosed, the issue is not ignorance; it is avoidance. Avoiding those conversations may preserve workflow and insurer relationships, but it transfers risk to the vehicle owner and gradually erodes trust in the industry as a whole.
It is also important to remember where responsibility ultimately resides. Insurers do not repair vehicles. Shops do. When a safety-related operation is omitted or altered due to reimbursement limitations, the repairer is the party that returned the vehicle to the road. Regardless of who refused to pay, responsibility and liability does not disappear with a denial. Silence does not insulate the repairer from consequence. It makes them part of the decision.
A repairer does not become complicit by disagreeing with an insurer. They become complicit by proceeding as though that disagreement does not exist. Transparency is the dividing line. Documenting insurer denials, explaining their implications and giving the customer a choice preserves professional integrity. Proceeding quietly may preserve convenience, but it does so at the expense of the vehicle owner.
If the collision repair industry wants to be viewed as the final safeguard for vehicle safety, it cannot continue to quietly accommodate repair limitations that are never disclosed to the people who own those vehicles. Complicity does not require bad actors. It only requires silence. And silence, repeated often enough, becomes a business practice with real consequences.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are mine and are intended for industry discussion and educational purposes only.
Want more? Check out the January 2026 issue of New Jersey Automotive!