Requesting Keystone perspective

The June issue the Collision Standard reported on the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District’s finding that American Family Insurance was guilty of not paying for complete repairs in Nicholas H. Smith, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company by systematically specifying non-OEM parts and routinely omitting necessary repairs from estimates.

In the finding Presiding Judge Harold L. Lowenstein concluded that aftermarket parts (AMPs) are not of like kind and quality to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) parts. Specifically he said, “Plaintiff’s evidence established that, because of the nature of the engineering, production, and materials, aftermarket parts were inferior in fit and performance and, therefore, not of like kind and quality to OEM parts.”

He backed up that statement with expert witness testimony, including one of the American Family’s witnesses.

That got us thinking: If AMPs are inferior to OEMs, as Judge Lowenstein stated, then what will the manufacturers of AMPs, such as Keystone and LKQ, do about it?

To find out we left messages for Carol Boers, general manager, Keystone Automotive Industries Inc. in Vancouver, Washington, to get her perspective. Does Keystone and LKQ agree with the District Court’s findings? If the engineering and manufacturing procedures for AMPs are inferior to those of OEM parts, will there be production changes? If so, when will this occur?

Up to press time Keystone has not responded. The Collision Standard prides itself in presenting all sides in an issue and being fair and even-handed in its reporting. Keystone, we would like to hear from you.

Expert witness testimony considered by the District Court judges

One engineering consultant Paul Grigio testified that because aftermarket parts are reverse-engineered – where the specifications are derived from an OEM part rather than the specifications that govern the manufacture of the OEM part – the aftermarket manufacturing process can never attain the specifications and tolerances of an OEM part. The consultant testified that aftermarket parts “will be of lesser quality in the dimension, dimensional area, and possibly in the structural area.”

A University of Texas at Austin professor of mechanical engineering Dr. Kristin Wood, testified to the limitations of the reverse engineering process. Wood explained that the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA), a body created by the insurance industry, “defines the standards for the manufacture and reverse engineering of imitation parts.”

Wood emphasized that like kind and quality went further than simple appearance or fit, that function and performance were the benchmarks. The professor testified that there were “real world consequences” of the use of aftermarket parts.

He also asserted that aftermarket parts are inferior in performance because CAPA does not always require that safety features on certain parts, such as hoods, be reverse-engineered into the aftermarket parts.

________________

The Collision Standard prides itself in presenting all sides in an issue and being fair and even-handed in its reporting. Keystone, we would appreciate hearing from you.