ADALB Demonstrates Consistency in Pushing Everything Down the Road

Published in New England Automotive Report – Thomas Greco Publishing

The Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) reconvened late September with a full agenda to discuss, but as has become customary at these meetings, little actually moved forward as the Board consistently decided to delay making an actual decision on even the most trivial details.

As the ADALB resumed its review of proposed amendments to Regulation 212 CMR 2.00 et seq., Board member Peter Smith (MAPFRE) launched into discussion on 212 CMR 2.02, which largely relates to appraisal forms and the application and examination processes. His suggested updates to the verbiage were made to account for the application and renewal process being moved online, and he also recommended updating the application fee.

Moving on to 212 CMR 2.04, Procedures for the Conduct of Appraisals and Intensified Appraisals, Smith suggested clarifying that all appraisal forms used today are electronic. 

Looking at a new addition to the Regulation, via 2.02(5)(c), Board member Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) clarified that added verbiage means that a handwritten appraisal requires a signature and seal, while an electronic appraisal does not require a signature. Smith agreed but emphasized, “It still needs to have all the proper information, and then transmission of that [electronic appraisal] constitutes the electronic signature.”

Before the Board moved on to the next matter of business, Johnson questioned a definition in the CMR, asking why “supervisory appraisal” is specifically identified as “an appraisal conducted by an insurance company or appraisal company supervisor solely for the purpose of evaluating the appraisal ability of one of his or her appraiser employees or for the purpose of providing on-the-job training of an appraiser employee” [emphasis added].

Smith suggested, “The verbiage is there to pave the way for the fact that a supervisor could come to the shop and say, ‘Hey, I need to take a look.’”

“Conversely, I can’t do a supervisory appraisal on one of my employees if I wanted to,” Johnson argued. “I’ve been confused for 30 years about why it was there, and I’d like clarification on why it cherrypicks and specifies insurance and independent appraisers.”

AASP/MA Executive Director Lucky Papageorg offered insight into possible situations where the insurer’s appraiser and supervisory appraiser show up in tandem, leaving the shop appraiser in a situation where they seem to be negotiating with two individuals.

“You’ve hit the nail on the head,” Johnson said. “I’ve had that happen before, yet I don’t have the same rights and privileges; I can’t go out to my appraiser to mentor him at the same time so it’s two on two because that’s not allowed. Maybe the definition of supervisory appraisal should be changed to specify that it happens after the initial appraisal is written and negotiated.”

Smith expressed his intention to update the Regulations based on the discussion held before the review continues at the Board’s next meeting.

Next, the Board discussed the proposed advisory ruling submitted by Johnson based on concerns raised at their March meeting. He pointed out, “There’s nothing earth-shattering in here. It just basically states what the rules and regulations are because we just need to keep on defining that for people. Nobody is going to sit down and read all the CMRs the way we do, so this is just a Cliff Notes version. We’re not changing any rules; we’re just telling everybody what the rules are.”

Yet, Smith seemed to take exception to some of the language related to exceptions and delays, expressing the desire to “be consistent in everything we do.” 

Johnson objected, “We are consistent, Pete – you consistently say no and consistently push everything down the road, so we are very consistent.”

His words proved true as Attorney Michael Powers suggested Smith put his concerns in writing for the Board to review at the next meeting.

In the call for “other business,” Johnson brought attention to inconsistencies in the CCC One Market Valuation Reports, and the Board went down the rabbit hole of discussing the matter, leading to a suggestion to review the matter and adjust 212 CMR 2.00 during the ongoing review, which was made by Board member Carl Garcia (Carl’s Collision Center; Fall River). 

When Complaint 2024-1 was brought up for review, Garcia explained that the complainant had informed the Board that he resolved the issue with the particular appraiser. The Board voted to dismiss the complaint before adjourning to Executive Session to review Complaint 2024-21. Before the ADALB adjourned, Papageorg asked Powers and Chairman Michael Donovan to outline the nature of the complaint, without disclosing the involved parties’ names, as they have done in the past; however, his request was all but ignored.

The ADALB was scheduled to reconvene on October 22. Don’t miss detailed coverage of the meeting, only available in the October/November issue of Damage Report, AASP/MA’s members-only newsletter.

AASP/MA members are strongly encouraged to listen to the recording of the September 19 meeting in the Members Only section of aaspma.org for a glimpse into the inner workings of the ADALB. View the meeting agenda at bit.ly/ADALB91924.