Institutional Bias? It’s a Madhouse at the ADALB
Published in New England Automotive Report – Thomas Greco Publishing
Last month, New England Automotive Report explored the ineffectiveness of the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board’s (ADALB) actions regarding its never-ending review of proposed revisions to 212 CMR 2.00 et seq (available to read online at grecopublishing.com/near0325coverstory).
But are those regulations even enforced? Anyone who has witnessed their handling of complaints in recent years has certainly asked this question, and it seems to be a topic worth exploring more closely.
Disorder. Mayhem. Hullabaloo. These are all synonyms for madhouse, which Websters defines as “a place of uproar or confusion.” Thus, the term madhouse certainly seems to apply to meetings of the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) where bewilderment reigns supreme and little seems to get accomplished…especially when it comes to possible infractions against 212 CMR 2.00 et seq, the regulation by which all licensed appraisers and their employers are bound.
In fact, over the past three years, 83 percent of complaints reviewed by the Board have been dismissed* based on a preliminary (and generally superficial) perusal.
Alleged regulatory violations are submitted to the ADALB in the form of a written complaint, and after the accused appraiser is notified of the complaints and their rights and options, the Board’s role in the process begins with a preliminary review of the complaint, “either in the executive or public session of the Board meeting as requested by the appraiser, to determine whether to dismiss the matter or pursue further action,” as stated in the “Guidelines for ADALB Complaint Procedures” (available online at bit.ly/ADALBguidelines).
Seems pretty straightforward, but because the complaint guidelines offer multiple options for how a complaint might proceed, it is often difficult to ascertain a specific complaint’s path through the process. Following the convoluted process around each twist and bend (recordings of meetings, agendas and meeting minutes) is enough to strike even the soundest mind with a bout of delirium while tracking complaints that have been tabled, revisited for subsequent hearings and even instances of dismissed complaints reappearing on subsequent agendas only to be dismissed again!
A closer look at the 234 complaints that reached the Board’s notice between March 15, 2022 and January 21, 2025 presents an even more concerning trend: many of those preliminary reviews seem to be given nothing more than lip service. And when a motion to move forward to the “next step” passes (as rare as that may be), things get even more squirrelly.
By the time the Board started their reviews, three complaints were withdrawn. Five tabled complaints – three from back in October 2022 – appear to still be pending a preliminary review. Thus, it appears that the preliminary administrative review process has been completed on 226 written complaints; of those, 188 (83 percent) were dismissed, and 38 (17 percent) moved forward.
The aforementioned guidelines allow for dismissals “due to lack of jurisdiction, based on frivolous allegations, lack of sufficient evidence, lack of legal merit or factual basis, finding of no violation, withdrawal of a complaint, subsequent compliance with statutes and/or regulations or other basis” [emphasis added], yet many of the complaints that were dismissed included documentation illustrating violations of 212 CMR 2.00 et seq or Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 26 Section 8G (MGL c. 26 § 8G).
Although the ADALB officially shares the DOI’s supposed mission of protecting consumer interests and is specifically charged with “adopt[ing] rules and regulations governing licenses under this section in order to promote the public welfare and safety,” as expressed in MGL c. 26 § 8G), the Board’s actions often speak volumes louder than those written words. But plenty of spoken words were pretty loud as well – particularly some of the discussions that indicated certain perplexity around pretty important concepts in the world of appraisals.
It may be helpful if the entire Board understood what constitutes a complaint. In October 2024, Board member Peter Smith (MAPFRE) claimed, “When information is brought to the Board alleging a violation or impropriety, it’s just information until the Board decides it is a complaint. So, I don’t see why there should be any further discussion about that information, other than that it’s just information. The Board decides when it’s a complaint.”
AASP/MA Executive Director Lucky Papageorg rebuffed that statement: “When someone files a complaint, you have a complaint. All you’re doing is deciding whether or not the complaint has the merit to proceed.”
Multiple complaints demonstrate a failure to negotiate, despite the need to negotiate being mentioned multiple times in the CMR. During the review of Complaint 2024-26, Smith indicated that the appraiser’s refusal to pay the amount requested by the shop did not constitute a failure to negotiate, to which Board member Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) objected, that “Nope, I’m not paying for that” is not a negotiation.
“When you negotiate, you need to provide a reason for drawing a line in the sand,” Johnson had explained at a previous meeting, and then-Board member Rick Starbard (Rick’s Auto Collision; Revere) agreed. “Appraisers arbitrarily deny procedures, but we give them carte blanche to do what they want.”
Smith sought to do exactly that on multiple occasions. “I conducted an initial review of these complaints, and what I found common throughout is that they, for the most part, involved a monetary dispute between the insurer’s appraiser and the shop’s appraiser,” Smith sought to unilaterally dismiss the 35 complaints on the July 2022 agenda. “I don’t think it’s in the Board’s purview to be getting involved in monetary disputes between appraisers.”
“Isn’t every complaint – whether it’s related to a procedure, hours or parts – a monetary dispute in some way?” Johnson countered, pushing the ADALB to review each complaint individually, pleading his case by stressing, “This is all about safety. We’re here for the consumers. It’s not a shop versus an insurance company. We’re here for the consumers, and we need to get that through our heads. That needs to be the focus here.”
Starbard agreed. “This is flat out dangerous! We’re trading bodies for profits. Vehicles today are not what they were in the 1970s, but this Board still wants to act like they are.”
However, their pleas repeatedly went unheeded, and Smith’s persistence succeeded in December 2023 when he sought to summarily dismiss the 83 of the 84 complaints scheduled for review because they were filed by one individual, involved the same respondent and “seem to be retaliatory in nature.” He claimed the complaints lacked appropriate supporting documentation and even some critical pieces of information. Despite protests from the auto body representatives on the Board, the motion to dismiss those 83 complaints passed.
During the Board’s preliminary reviews of those 226 complaints, this divide between the ADALB’s insurers and auto body professionals has become perfunctory. Only 13 dismissals resulted from unanimous decisions, while another four were dismissed when an auto body representative took the same position as the insurance representatives; altogether, that accounts for just nine percent of the preliminary dismissals. What about the other
91 percent? Let’s return to that after an examination of the complaints that moved forward in the process.
Nine of the 34 complaints to move forward received unanimous votes, though Complaint 2023-1 only received a unanimous vote because both insurers were forced to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Former Board member Samantha Tracy (Arbella Insurance) voted in line with the repairers – and against the Board’s other insurer – on 16 of these complaints; Smith did it once.
It’s possible that some of the reluctance to “move forward” stems from a failure to understand exactly what that means. In February 2023, Attorney Michael Powers clarified the matter: “Under the complaint procedures, when it says ‘move to the next step,’ you have two possible steps. One is to notify the appraiser with a copy of the complaint and request that they send a written response which waives their appearance before the Board. Number two is you just notify the appraiser to appear before the Board.”
Still, as recently as the January 2025 meeting, confusion appears to linger as Smith hedged on voting to move forward by expressing a desire to “get the other side of the story.” Johnson clarified, “That’s what moving forward means. We notify the employee and ask questions to get the other side of the story.” Later during the same meeting, that explanation had to be reiterated as Smith urged the Board, “Let’s not jump to conclusions,” a somewhat ironic utterance given his voting history.
Although the remaining 12 passed motions moved forward thanks to Chairman Michael Donovan casting a tie-breaking vote in the repairers’ favor, several of his acquiescences were questionable. On Complaint 2022-11, both insurers had abstained, so Donovan’s negative vote would have carried no weight, and during the January 2023 meeting, Donovan’s vote to move forward on Complaint 2022-70 appeared to result from his perplexity as Johnson and Starbard employed the tactic of making a motion to dismiss the complaint, only to vote against their own motions.
Donovan’s vote to move forward on 2024-21 appeared to be reactionary. Earlier in the meeting, he had voted to dismiss 2024-14 which involved the same carrier and the same issue (a delay in completing the supplement); however, the final vote during the meeting when these were reviewed occurred after Donovan engaged in a heated debate with Johnson and Board member Carl Garcia (Carl’s Collision Center; Fall River). Due to the ADALB’s insurance representatives repeatedly ignoring regulatory violations and insisting that the resulting short pays could be resolved through arbitration, the repairers indicated using arbitration would force shops to bill the difference to the vehicle owner upon completion of the repairs. Donovan took exception to that solution, stating “We’re here to protect the consumer.”
“We’re not doing a great job,” Garcia pointed out that arbitration would penalize consumers since vehicle owners would then be responsible for the difference that insurers refused to pay. Johnson highlighted the truth of that statement by reminding the chairman, “You just voted against moving forward with a complaint where the consumer paid $678.45 to get their vehicle out of the shop [on 2024-14].” Subsequently, Donovan voted in line with Johnson and Garcia to move forward on Complaint 2024-21.
Seeing as how MGL c. 26 § 8G indicates the commissioner-appointed ADALB chairman “shall not be affiliated with either the auto body industry or the insurance industry,” it’s pretty clear that Donovan is not doing a great job since his voting record clearly indicates a bias toward a certain side of the table. Remember the 91 percent of dismissals that have not yet been analyzed? Yep, you guessed it – those 171 complaints were dismissed as a result of Donovan’s intervention.
Nearly every time insurers were forced to recuse themselves from voting, resulting in a two-to-one, Donovan cast a vote in line with the other insurance representative to create a tie, declaring the complaint failed to move forward. Interestingly, a tie only appears to prevent a motion from passing when it relates to moving forward with a complaint; when a motion to table Complaint 2022-12 yielded votes of yay from Starbard and Johnson but nay from Tracy and Donovan (Smith abstained), the motion was declared to pass.
And time after time, tied votes went in favor of the insurers…whether that was accomplished by Donovan explicitly casting a vote or by him merely declaring that the motion to move forward had failed. Johnson observed this on one occasion and asked, “When it’s a tie vote and it fails, is this your de facto ‘no’ every time? I think it’s important that you go on record as to what your feelings are with this. If you’re not voting, it’s a ‘no’ I guess because you’re making the motion fail.”
On another occasion, when Donovan questioned the repairers’ tactic of voting against their own motions, Johnson explained, “We’re trying to get you to be on record. When Rick or I make a motion to move a complaint forward and there is a two-to-two vote, you’re silent; you don’t break the tie. The only way you break the tie is if we make a motion to dismiss and vote against our own motion, so that puts you on record. If you feel strongly about this, what’s the problem with being on record and being transparent?”
But one thing is pretty transparent. Papageorg summed it up best during the August 2022 ADALB meeting when he observed, “The bias being presented here by this Board is about the only thing that’s transparent with the ADALB.”
Starbard agreed. “I don’t think a vote is ever taken at the ADALB that is unbiased on the insurers’ side.”
Preliminary review of these complaints resulted in 183 ties; Donovan’s vote moved the needle in the insurers’ direction 93.4 percent of the time. But examination of the complaints that moved forward shows an even clearer tendency to align with the insurance representatives.
Of the 38 complaints that moved forward, public records reveal the results of the ADALB’s subsequent consideration for 30 of them. (The January 2024 meeting agenda indicated that Complaint 2023-1 would be revisited during executive session, but the meeting minutes did not mention the Board’s decision. Complaint 2024-2 was scheduled to be heard during January’s executive session, but the minutes were not available at the time of writing).
Two complaints were tabled, and three moved forward to the next step. The Board voted unanimously on one, while two required Donovan to break the tie in line with the repairers in order to move forward; however, “moving forward” often amounts to nothing.
For example, Complaint 2022-50, which alleged a failure to negotiate for adequate costs to pay for the materials and labor required on a three-stage coating, received a vote to move forward with requesting additional information during its first review in July 2022. Upon second review during executive session in March 2023, Donovan cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of the repairers’ motion to move forward to a formal hearing, which took place in May 2023’s executive session. In response to a request to dismiss by the appraiser’s attorney, Smith made a motion to dismiss. And although the meeting minutes reflect it was “dismissed by a vote of three-to-two with Board members Johnson and Starbard voting no and Chairman Donovan abstaining,” a three-to-two vote is not possible without the chairman’s vote, making it clear as mud that his de facto vote favored dismissal…and possibly raising questions as to the accuracy of these minutes.
In contrast, 25 were dismissed during the secondary review, with only six of those dismissals resulting from a unanimous decision or dissension between the auto body representatives. Donovan agreed to the dismissals 19 times – either to break a tie or to create one in favor of the insurers.
At this point, 205 opportunities arose where Donovan has had the opportunity to cast a vote that would influence the path a complaint took…and 93 percent of the time, he chose to align himself with the insurance representatives seated at the table.
“WHY?” one might ask.
But the most recurring trend in Donovan’s commentary throughout the review of complaints has pertained to the monetary aspect of the dispute. “Many of these complaints relate to disputes over reimbursement for repairs, and some of them are a very minor amount of money,” he pointed out in July 2022. He repeatedly questioned the Board about the difference between what shops requested and what insurers agreed to pay, despite reminders that the complaints were filed as a result of a failure in the process, not because of the pecuniary amount related to that failure.
Before voting with Smith and Ye to summarily dismiss the 83 complaints in December 2023, Donovan objected to spending another year “sitting around, dealing with a $20 bill related to the return of an item.” His objections to spending time reviewing complaints based on the small amount of money being contested have been voiced at nearly every meeting where these reviews took place.
Although Donovan is correct in his insistence that the ADALB’s job is NOT to address monetary disputes, “Every complaint is a monetary dispute,” as Johnson has repeatedly expressed. This is acknowledged repeatedly throughout the regulation, which includes the word “cost” 17 times, including in the definition of “appraiser;’ 212 CMR 2.04(e) explicitly states, “The appraisers representing the insurance company and the registered repair shop selected by the insured to do the repair shall attempt to agree on the estimated cost for such repairs.”
The Board is NOT responsible for determining the amount that should be paid when a complaint is filed – but they ARE charged with investigating whether those monetary disputes were caused by an appraiser violating the regulations, such as by causing delays with supplemental paperwork or refusing to negotiate the true cost of repairs as determined by the shop’s actual expenses and documentation (not based on the insurer’s initial “guesstimate”).
Attorney Powers seems to have similar reservations about complaints that mention monetary amounts, as indicated during the review of Complaint 2024-23 when he suggested the complaint was irrelevant since the consumer had already compensated the shop for the amount the insurer neglected to pay. “So, if an appraiser doesn’t pay properly for a repair car or does not negotiate properly, and I back charge the customer and get the money, that means the appraiser did not break the law?” Johnson countered. “You’re saying I didn’t break the CMR because I got all of my money? Getting paid doesn’t negate the fact that the appraiser shouldn’t have done what he did.”
Donovan also took exception to the number of complaints filed by an individual shop owner in 2022, complaining multiple times during the ADALB’s review. “Have you ever had this number of complaints from a single person in your tenure?” he posed to Attorney Powers at one point, and when Powers agreed that the volume was highly unusual, Donovan suggested that there may be “an agenda” and expressed bewilderment that “this particular repairer has so much difficulty.”
Further evidence of Donovan’s lack of understanding about the relationships between repairers and insurers, as well as the roles both industries play in the repair process, occurred in December 2023 when he acknowledged, “I don’t understand, frankly, the difference between what Ms. Ye does and what you [Johnson and Garcia] all do.”
“I’m not dependent upon any insurance company to send me any work,” Johnson tried to explain color to the blind as he inferred that it could possibly be detrimental to Ye’s livelihood if an insurer dislikes how she votes on certain issues. “An insurance agent is dependent upon that insurance company for a book of business. The insurance company can shed an agent anytime they want. That’s the difference.”
The Board chair also seems confused about the ADALB’s responsibilities. When Starbard expressed his belief that any appraiser’s license should be suspended or revoked due to “serious misconduct,” Donovan appeared appalled at the suggestion of impacting someone’s livelihood by revoking their license. Yet, at a subsequent meeting, Donovan showed no reservation in revoking a shop owner’s appraisal license. “Unfortunately, sometimes we have to do that, so I am going to vote yes to revoke the license.” This raises the question: What’s the difference (in Donovan’s mind) between revoking an insurance appraiser’s license versus a shop owner’s appraisal license?
“Insurance appraisers need to actually believe the ADALB might take their license away for violating the regulations!” Starbard vented his frustrations during an interview with New England Automotive Report last year. “I’ve had appraisers dare me to report them to the Board because they know nothing will happen. There needs to be a threat of losing their license or financial penalties or something. As it stands now, they know they can do whatever they want, and nothing will happen.”
But maybe that’s what certain members of the ADALB want – for nothing to happen. Meetings of the ADALB often devolve into utter pandemonium, and while the reasoning behind their actions often appears impenetrable, one thing emerges as crystal clear: the Board does not act from a disinterested standpoint. Their bias toward certain interests demonstrates the obvious conflict of interest inherent in allowing insurers to govern insurance companies’ behaviors. It’s enough to drive anyone mad.
*For the sake of simplicity – and to prevent readers from ramming their heads into a wall – a “dismissed” complaint refers to both those for which a motion to dismiss passed AND those for which a motion to move forward failed since the end result is the same. This matter was confirmed by Attorney Michael Powers during the Board’s January 2023 meeting when he stated, “Anytime the Board fails to move forward with a complaint, the Board’s past practice has been to dismiss it. We need an affirmative vote to move forward with the complaint, a majority vote.”
