« back to articles

After Market Parts- Body Shop Liability? Part I.

            I have been asked, repeatedly, to write about the potential liability of a body shop for using aftermarket replacement parts that either fail leading to an accident or cause increased damages as a result of an accident. What is a body shop’s liability if said part was used based on the insistence of the insurance company who is paying for the repair? What if the part or parts were certified as being equal to or of better quality than the original manufacturer part?

            The answers to these questions may lie significantly in the process of litigation, which would follow a case brought by an owner or occupant of a vehicle, which had aftermarket parts of an inferior quality.

            In N.J.A.C. § 11:2- 17.10, entitled is “The Rules for Fair and equitable settlements applicable to property and liability insurance the regulations,” at 11. state, “(n)o insurer shall require the use of aftermarket parts in the repair of an automobile unless the aftermarket part is warranted by the manufacturer in a reasonable manner as to duration and coverage and at least equal in like kind and quality to replacement parts available from the original manufacturer of the part in terms of fit, quality and performance. Use of aftermarket parts which have been certified by an independent testing laboratory as being of like kind and quality to the original manufactured part will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.”

            Assuming an accident or injury to an occupant of a vehicle repaired with a properly “certified” or “warranted” aftermarket part that the person then brings a claim against the body shop that allegedly negligently repaired the vehicle with said part (s) which either caused the accident or lead to increased injuries as a result of said part (s) failure. The initial response of the body shop would be to implead (bring into the lawsuit) the insurance company which insisted on the use of said part (s) and the manufacturer of said part (s).

            Ultimate liability or responsibility should not in any way fall on the body shop who simply used the parts either insisted upon by the insurance company paying for the repairs and/or replied upon the manufacturers warranty or the certification of the part by an appropriately authorized independent testing laboratory. Many legal questions remain open at the time of this writing – What determines “like kind and quality”? Who is an appropriately authorized independent testing laboratory? The answers to these questions should not affect the body shop per se– as long as they have been diligent in their processes in using warranted and/or certified parts. Doing so should exculpate them from responsibility for using these parts. The fact that they are involved in a lawsuit at all may only be as a result of the process itself and not due to any actual fault.

            What happens next is the legal process. The body shop (or their liability carrier) will bring a third-party action against both the insurance company who insisted on the use of the aftermarket part as well as the manufacturer of the part. According to Section 10 of N.J.A.C. § 11:2- 17.10, “(a)ll aftermarket parts manufactured after October 17, 1988 used in the repair of an automobile where insurance proceeds provide the basis of payment therefore shall carry sufficient permanent identification so as to identify the manufacturer thereof. Such identification shall be accessible after installation to the extent possible.” What should follow is a Summary Judgment motion by the body shop to be excused from the lawsuit due to their lack of legal responsibility (liability).

            Bottom line – as long as a body shop uses due diligence to make sure a warranty or certification is present for the use of aftermarket parts I believe the body shop is in a great position to transfer any liability or responsibility for the failure of said part. Further questions revolving around whether the shops should be using these parts is outside the scope of this article but certainly recent testing has shed additional light on this topic and you likely will be hearing more on this topic in the coming months.