Dear Victor – Industry Expert Clarifies Supplement Time Requirements

by Coverall Law and Victor A. Fanikos, Esq.

In the collision repair industry, the rules governing the relationship between repair shops, insurers and appraisers are complex, often presenting unique challenges for shop owners seeking fair treatment and timely processes.

To navigate these waters, it’s invaluable to have insights from those who helped shape the very laws and regulations that define the industry. One such expert is Victor A. Fanikos, Esq., a veteran legal mind with decades of experience in Massachusetts insurance law and auto damage appraisal oversight.

 Fanikos’ career spans nearly six decades, during which he has established himself as a trusted authority in the legal and regulatory framework surrounding motor vehicle repair and insurance. A former assistant legal counsel and acting general counsel at the Massachusetts Division of Insurance, as well as a former legal counsel to the Auto Damage Appraisers Licensing Board (ADALB), Victor’s contributions have left an indelible mark on the industry. He was instrumental in drafting the 212 CMR 2.00 regulations, which remain a cornerstone of the appraisal and repair process to this day. His co-authorship of the “Easy to Read Massachusetts Auto Policy” underscores his commitment to making complex legal issues accessible and actionable for stakeholders.

Victor’s firsthand experience in regulatory drafting, combined with his in-depth understanding of the mechanics of the appraisal process, has made him a sought-after expert witness and advisor. In his work with the ADALB, he played a pivotal role in mediating the often-complicated negotiations between repair shops and insurers, advocating for clarity, fairness and efficiency. Notably, his insights into the Massachusetts Mechanic’s Lien Statute (M.G.L. c. 255, § 25) and its application to preliminary repair work (commonly referred to as dismantling or “tear down”) have empowered repair shops to assert their rights and protect their interests.

This article, centered on Victor’s insights, is more than a recounting of his expertise – it’s a resource for understanding the regulatory and legal landscape that governs the collision repair industry in Massachusetts. By drawing on Victor’s decades of experience and his deep involvement in the creation of the current regulatory framework, we aim to provide collision repair professionals with the tools and knowledge they need to navigate the appraisal process, enforce their rights and ensure fair treatment in dealings with insurers.

From his historical perspective on the development of 212 CMR 2.00 to his advocacy for efficient, consumer-focused repair practices, Victor’s contributions are a testament to the importance of strong legal foundations in ensuring a balanced and equitable industry. His legacy is not just one of legal precision but also of steadfast support for the collision repair shops that keep Massachusetts drivers on the road.

Dear Victor:

Could you clarify the differences between the supplement timing requirements outlined in the Massachusetts General Law versus the Code of Massachusetts Regulations? Also, what steps should a collision repair shop take if an insurer’s appraiser fails to conduct an inspection within the required timeframe?

Victor Fanikos: You know, the whole timing issue around supplemental appraisals really just boils down to a drafting error. Back when 212 CMR 2.04 came out, it wasn’t meant to set different timing expectations from what’s in the Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 90, Section 34O – it just ended up that way by accident. When the discrepancy was spotted, it was brought to the Board’s attention, and we all agreed it was more of a technical hiccup than anything intentional.

Now, you might wonder why we didn’t fix it then and there. Honestly, at the time, it just didn’t seem necessary. We were seeing about 95 percent compliance from appraisers and insurers, so the Board decided there was no need to open up a hearing and get into the weeds over something that, in practice, wasn’t causing much trouble. Sometimes, stirring things up can do more harm than good, and we didn’t want to invite issues where there really weren’t any.

For shops today, if they run into a situation where an insurer’s appraiser isn’t coming out on time, the process we set up is still a good route. The best first step is to file a complaint with the ADALB. Back in the day, the board’s executive secretary would often just pick up the phone and call the parties involved to try to settle things informally. A quick call from the Board usually encouraged people to sort it out without dragging everyone into a hearing, and that approach kept things efficient.

But if an informal resolution doesn’t get you anywhere and you do end up filing a formal complaint, it’s worth knowing how the Board tends to look at these cases. We would usually assess whether the delay was down to the appraiser themselves or if the insurer’s practices made it nearly impossible for the appraiser to keep up with the workload. If it was the appraiser, they might face a temporary suspension to encourage them to stick to the timeline. But if the insurer’s operations were the issue – maybe they’d grown too fast or didn’t have enough resources to stay compliant – the Board would press the insurer to correct the underlying problem.

Here’s one more piece of advice which may prove crucial: always track and document every complaint you file with the ADALB, and make sure to send a copy to the Commissioner of Insurance’s office. Track both mailings and consider sending certified. A well-documented paper trail showing that you’ve made repeated efforts to address the issue can be helpful if the Board isn’t moving fast enough; having that record can give your case some weight. In fact, there were a couple of times when the Commissioner’s office gave us a call asking, ‘What’s going on down there?’ and that kind of nudge often sparked action.

In the end, it’s about identifying the root cause and getting the wheels turning again. So, while the language in the CMR might not perfectly match the MGL, there’s a process in place to make sure shops have a way to address delays if they start affecting business. And if that old approach worked back then, I’d say it’s worth a try today.

Want more? Check out the January 2025 issue of New England Automotive Report!