From: Debbie Klouser Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:19 PM To: Mike Parker Subject: RE: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Dear Mike – I want to respond to your email (as well as other emails from those who have joined the discussion) by again inviting you and your colleagues to come to our testing facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The intent of such a tour is to give us the opportunity to present the CAPA Program in a comprehensive way and have an open and transparent discussion on the issues we all agree are important. Along with the CAPA website and other information I have previously shared with you, this visit should answer the numerous questions asked. Regarding the Missouri court case you discussed, CAPA was not involved in that lawsuit and is not in a position to comment on it. Regarding the specific part in your email (or any CAPA Certified part you believe is not comparable to the car company service counterparts), I would encourage you to submit a CAPA Quality Complaint, which can be done online via the CAPA website. This gives CAPA the opportunity to more thoroughly look into your specific concern. Again, I hope you will accept CAPA’s invitation to visit and we look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to ensure that the market has access to high quality, safe and reliable alternative parts. Regards, Deborah G. Klouser Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) From: Barrett Smith Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:00 PM To: Mark Cobb; Debbie Klouser; Mike Parker Subject: RE: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Just a thought (and I know Mark knows this): Although many do, no one has ever said that a repairer had to or should do these processes for free…or accept the associated liabilities. If a shop employees a “Alternative Parts Disclosure and Liability Waiver/Hold Harmless Agreement and edifies their customer properly, there are no remaining questions other than to the customer asking them how they wish for the “humble service provider” to proceed with their repair? Simple really. Barrett R. Smith, AAM, President Auto Damage Experts, Inc. From: Mike Parker Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 8:43 AM To: Debbie Klouser Subject: Re: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Debbie: The letter you sent on 9-18-15 had the wrong e-mail address. It is not mikw@parkersauto.com. It is mike@parkersauto.com. I'm surprised your computer did not notify you that that e-mail address didn't exist. That is why I never got your reply. I'd like to express my thanks to all the shops that e-mailed me with their support. I am not an attorney and any interpretation of policy language or other following comments are only my opinion and should not be considered legal advice. Aftermarket parts are not a body shop problem, certified or not. They are a consumer problem. I only took this on because I was challenged by an insurance company. From my observation whenever there is discussion about aftermarket parts the insurance industry and CAPA muddy the water to the point that the real issue is no longer clear. Consumers are told the parts are CAPA certified. CAPA tells about the CAPA Technical Committee, their inspection process and the 501 bumper standard. The real issue is, are the parts of like kind and quality? If they aren't, in my opinion, the consumer is harmed. Most if not all insurance policies state that the parts used to repair a damaged vehicle must be of "like kind and quality" with no year stipulation. There is nothing in any policy that I am aware of that states the parts must be CAPA Certified. In fact like kind and quality can be found in the Insurance Standard Office 165 Line Contract. Because a part is CAPA certified does not mean it is of like kind and quality to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part is to replace. For an insurer to specify and only pay for CAPA parts that are not of like kind and quality could be considered a breach of contract on a 1st party claim. On a claim where the at fault driver's insurance is indemnifying the vehicle owner for the loss and there is no contact of insurance what possible right does the insurer have to impose aftermarket parts onto the consumer, certified or not? In a class action lawsuit in Missouri an engineering consultant 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. This was an appellant ruling so I believe it is now reference law in all states. But rather than mentioning any other parts of the suit I will attach it to this e-mail for everyone's review. The testimony of this engineer starts on page 9. CAPA is mentioned on page 10. I feel I should tell the chain of events that has lead to the e-mail to CAPA. As I stated before this is a consumer issue, not a body shop issue. When the insurance company specified a CAPA certified upper tie bar it was not the first time they had written one. I called the vehicle owner and told her that she would have to pay the difference for an OEM part because we would not install the AM radiator tie bar for her safety and our liability. There is no proof that the part is made from the same material as the Subaru part. This is how we've dealt with this numerous times before. The vehicle owner wanted to argue with the insurer for an OEM part as she had her children riding in the car. She called the next day and told me the insurance supervisor wanted to speak to me. I called and he told me he would not specify an OEM part unless I could prove it was not of like kind and quality. I mentioned a few Appellant Court rulings that have found aftermarket parts to not be of like kind and quality and that was not good enough. That is when I decided to buy a Rockwell hardness tester. I purchased both the OEM and CAPA part on 3/28/15. I measured both parts and when I found them to have considerably different hardness. I requested a supplement, as a courtesy to my customer, for the difference of hardness of the metal. The appraiser didn't want to deal with the hardness difference so he rewrote his estimate specifying a new OEM part. His reason was that the CAPA part was obviously visually flawed. The cost difference was around $10. I'm sure you heard of the mechanic in Vermont that was charged with manslaughter for failing to inspect a car properly that resulted in a death. CAPA agrees this part was not of the correct hardness. Because it is a structural part if she was in a subsequent accident and she or one of her children were killed, where does that leave me? In June of 2015 we got an estimate written by the same insurer. I spoke to the appraiser and told him that the CAPA radiator support would probably not be of the same material as the OEM part so why doesn't he just specify an OEM part now. He told me that just because I'm the only shop in Vermont that has some tool that I claim measures metal hardness they are not about to change how they write estimates. I spoke to the vehicle owner and told her that I would order both the OEM radiator support and the CAPA one and if the hardness was different the insurer will probably specify an OEM support and if not she would have to pay the difference, but the insurer changed the rules. When I found that this CAPA support had a hardness value that was significantly different from the OE the insurer told me I had to prove the part was unsafe. I told him the hardness test just proved it, but he told me that wasn't good enough. What I should have done is bought a lottery ticket. What are that the odds I'd get back to back CAPA structural parts with hardness values considerably different than the OEM parts they were meant to replace are. Unfortunately the odds seem much better than winning the lottery. The owner called to argue her point for the OEM support and the appraiser mentioned that they will not change it to an OEM part because it could cause a big recall as they write for these parts all over the US. The vehicle owner paid the difference and we put the OEM support on and returned the CAPA part. I am not interested in seeing the facility in Grand Rapids. I'm sure it is impressive, but I don't see any point because you can't be inspecting parts to OEM specifications, but rather values created by CAPA or the manufacturer of the AM part. If I am wrong and all the OEM's have provided you the prints to the parts, I apologize. What I would like to see is for CAPA to submit a large population of CAPA certified parts to all the OEM's to test to see if they are of like kind and quality. That is the standard by which CAPA parts should be measured. If the parts do not pass all the tests the OEM parts are subjected to in my opinion the parts would not be of like kind and quality and they would not meet the obligation of the insurer as promised by the policy/contract. To me, this would actually prove something. There is still the issue of the high strength steel (HSS) hood too. I think all CAPA parts replacing HSS panels are suspect too. Please answer the following questions so everyone can have a better understanding of CAPA: 1) Who formed CAPA? 2) Why was CAPA formed? 3) List the board of directors and state the companies they work for. 4) List the members of the Technical Committee and who they work for. 5) Of the body shop owners listed, list the ones who are independent. 6) How many factories participate in the CAPA program? 7) To be certified how often do the aftermarket part manufacturers submit a particular part for testing? 8) After a part is certified what is the inspection frequency there after? 9) What is the sample size? 10) It sounds like body shops are unknowing inspectors for CAPA. How much inspection training do they have? What tools does CAPA provide them? 11) Would a body shop technician in the field be able to check anything but fit? 12) Would anyone have known about these material issues if I didn't buy a hardness tester? 13) How many shops would you say in the US own hardness testers? 14) Theoretically tensile strength and yield tests may be slightly more accurate, but do you agree that out in the field a hardness tester will certainly make the most sense and will indicate a problem? 15) Once you found there were structural parts on unwitting consumer's vehicle why wasn't there a recall? 16) How many of the members of your Technical Committee have quality control training or are engineers? 17) Does CAPA contend that all CAPA parts are of like kind and quality to the OEM parts there are intended to replace? 18) If so what is the basis? 19) I know this isn't really your problem, but were you aware of most insurance policy/contracts requirement that parts must be of like kind and quality? 20) How do you test plastic parts to ensure they are made from the same material as the OEM part? 21) What safeguards are in place to eliminate the possibility of an aftermarket parts manufacturer from submitting OEM parts to CAPA to get their part certified? 22) Who places the CAPA stickers on the parts? 23) What is the cost to the aftermarket parts manufacturers to buy the CAPA stickers? 24) How is CAPA funded? 25) If the Subaru upper tie bar was decertified please provide me with the NHTSA safety recall campaign number. Mike Parker President of the Vermont Auto Body Association From: Mark Cobb Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:35 PM To: Debbie Klouser; Mike Parker Subject: RE: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Miss Klouser, I don’t mean to step into this email but I don’t see any reference to how you take all the defective parts off the road and off the cars that have been installed once a REPAIRER tells you they found a defect? Also how come I am constantly still getting CAPA certified parts that even physically look different then their OEM counter parts? Why does the shop have to perform all this parts testing and complaint filing for free? How is that our issue again? Who made the legal definition at CAPA as to what is and what is not a “cosmetic” part of the car? When you say “Regarding your specific concern, we agree that the critical performance, appearance, and material characteristics of a CAPA Certified part should mimic those of the car company brand part.” What is meant by “Mimic” shouldn’t it be LKQ Exactly like the same kind and the same quality.? Thanks and I am sorry to step in you just prompted some questions I had. Mark Cobb Cobb's Inc. D/B/A Cobb's Collision Center From: Debbie Klouser Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:21 PM To: Mike Parker Subject: RE: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Dear Mike – Thanks for your email and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns. First I would like to respond to your comment regarding CAPA’s failure to respond to your 9-16-15 inquiry through CAPA’s website. I did respond to that inquiry on 9-18-15. In my response I indicated that if you believed that the two CAPA Certified radiator supports that you referenced (or any other CAPA Certified part) were not comparable to their car company service counterparts, that you should submit a CAPA Quality Complaint so we could evaluate the parts in question. (See attached email). Regarding CAPA’s involvement with bumper parts, we didn’t introduce our CAPA 501 standard until 2010 and did not have any certified bumper parts in the program until November 2011. Because someone told you in 2007 that CAPA parts were crash tested, I clarified our position in an April 2007 email to you indicating that because the parts we were certifying at that time were generally cosmetic, there was no need for crash testing. With the implementation of the 501 bumper standard which includes stricter requirements and performance testing, we are able to further compare the parts performance to the car company branded service part. This is why, in developing the standard, we worked closely with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nation’s leading auto safety testing organization, performing both low and high speed crash tests to evaluate part performance which indicated that parts meeting the CAPA 501 standard performed the same as the car company service parts. Because the CAPA program is one that tests every significant aspect of a part to see that it performs the same as the car company brand service part, we work hard to ensure that the standards and tolerances are legitimate, fully transparent and, most importantly, effective. One of the ways we do that is to ensure that the standards and tolerances are fully vetted and approved by CAPA’s Technical Committee which includes key members of the collision repair industry. (see http://www.capacertified.org/about-capa/capa-technical-committee/). Regarding your specific concern, we agree that the critical performance, appearance, and material characteristics of a CAPA Certified part should mimic those of the car company brand part. To that end, we use tensile and yield tests to compare strength, which the material engineering community has determined are much more accurate, accepted, and useful than hardness tests for comparing material strength. Hardness tests are performed on metal components only when the design or shape of the part precludes tensile and yield strength testing. Theoretically, hardness correlates to strength, but it is not as accurate as tensile and yield tests in determining the actual strength of a part. Regarding the Subaru replacement part you mentioned, while we did not hear from you about it, an insurer brought it to our attention in May 2015 and we asked to have the part for testing. When we didn’t receive it, we purchased parts from the market and initiated our own testing. At that time, we were able to verify the concerns raised. The part, which originally met our tensile and yield strength comparative tests, no longer did so. We immediately decertified the part lots tested and prohibited the manufacturer from making any more CAPA Certified versions of the parts until they could demonstrate proper material properties based on yield and tensile strength testing. You mentioned, generically, a number of other parts which you believe may have material differences from the car company brand service parts. We would very much appreciate the opportunity to purchase the parts from you and put them through the CAPA testing process. If that is not possible, if you could identify the parts, we will purchase them from the market for testing. A key element of the CAPA program is our complaint process – we strongly encourage and appreciate shops telling us when they uncover a perceived issue. We understand that shops today want a chance to fix the car, not send it to the junkyard as a total. But to do so, they need access to high quality parts, and that is the reason why CAPA exists. As you know, we don’t market, sell, or profit from, or distribute parts. We test parts to identify which ones meet our comprehensive standards, which as you indicated in your email, is impossible to do in the field. In fact, we have tested a number of parts that look and fit just fine, only to find they are made of the wrong materials or improper construction. So as we did when we were first notified of the problems with the Subaru, we will take any actions necessary when a part surfaces that does not meet our standards for functional equivalency to the car company brand service part. As such, we look forward to getting more information from you on the parts that you have studied. It is clear that you are interested in quality and we would like to offer you the opportunity to take a tour of our testing facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In fact, our executive director, Jack Gillis would be happy to host you and some of your colleagues in Vermont for such a visit. We’ve had many (if not most) of America’s collision repair leaders visit our facility, including some of the most outspoken critics of aftermarket parts. Not only does this afford CAPA with a great learning experience, but nearly 100% of those visits have resulted in the knowledge that there is little difference in the goals of CAPA and of today’s collision repairers. For our part we assure a candid, honest, fully transparent look at the program with no questions, concerns or issues brushed aside. We hope you and some of your colleagues will take us up on this offer. There’s certainly a great deal of angst, anger and concern about the issue of aftermarket parts, so we believe anything we can do, together, to improve the situation would be an investment well worth the time. We hope you agree. Thanks again for getting in touch with us and we look forward to working with you as we continue our efforts to ensure that the market has access to high quality, safe and reliable alternative parts. Kindest regards, Deborah G. Klouser Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) From: Mike Parker Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:26 AM To: Debbie Klouser Subject: CAPA Certified aftermarket structural & HSS parts Debbie: This e-mail is in regard to metal hardness of CAPA certified aftermarket parts. Specifically parts that the original Equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts are high strength steel (HSS) and radiator supports, which are considered structural parts. Because a previous contact regarding this subject was ignored by CAPA I am copying this e-mail to some other parties to ensure this issue is brought to light. I’ve tested some CAPA Certified aftermarket replacement parts with a Rockwell Hardness tester and compared the hardness to the OEM part it was intended to replace. My sample size was small, but there was a 100% failure rate. The hardness of the CAPA Certified aftermarket parts were significantly different than the OEM parts they were supposed to replace. Because of the 100% failure rate I have to conclude there are a significant amount of CAPA certified aftermarket parts, presently on cars, that are made from different material than the OEM parts they are intended to replace. This brings up two issues. First in regard to the radiator supports there is a potential safety issue. Radiator supports are considered structural and play a role in the deployment of airbags. Secondly, if the CAPA aftermarket parts are not equivalent to the OEM parts they replace the vehicle owner isn’t made whole. The parts would not be of like kind and quality which is a requirement of most insurance policies. I am basing my concerns upon statements previously made by CAPA. The structural CAPA certified aftermarket radiator supports are not of the same hardness as the original equipment parts they intend to replace and in CAPA’s own words this puts the driving public at serious risk. The following are the statements that I refer to: In 2007 there was an appraiser in this area telling consumers that CAPA certified parts were crash tested just like the OEM parts. I knew that was untrue, but e-mailed you for verification to resolve the issue. I got your response in an e-mail dated 4/26/2007. This was your response: “No CAPA parts are crash tested because CAPA certified parts are only considered cosmetic parts. This includes bumper covers because they are only covers – they are not reinforced steel. If they were reinforced steel bumpers then we would be required to do crash testing. All of the parts material strengths etc. are tested and must be the same as the OEM in that respect as well as fit and appearance.” A couple years later during the Collision Industry Conference in November of 2009, repair organizations demonstrated testing an OEM and a NON-OEM bumper reinforcement for a 2009 Toyota Corolla that was not CAPA certified. These tests demonstrated that Toyota’s bumper reinforcement made of high strength steel (HSS) was exponentially stronger than the non-OEM bumper reinforcement that was made with ordinary carbon steel. On February 1, 2010 CAPA issued a press release. I will not quote the entire release, but there are 2 paragraphs that will help make my point. “For the past 2 months, CAPA has been conducting its own independent evaluations of aftermarket bumpers” said Gillis. “The results of these tests point squarely to the need for a CAPA bumper standard. CAPA is proud to be able to respond to this urgent need by developing independent certification standards for bumper reinforcement parts.” “In developing the standard, CAPA has tested numerous bumpers for comparability to their car-company-brand counterparts. In testing what appear on the surface to be reasonably well-manufactured aftermarket bumpers, our laboratories discovered serious deficiencies in mechanical properties such as strength and metal hardness, material thickness, and fit. These deficiencies potentially place the driving public, who trust body shops to repair their vehicles with safe quality parts, at serious risk.” The bumper reinforcements that CAPA has referred to in their press release are structural, as are the radiator supports. Because these parts are structural they both play a role in the proper timing of the deployment of the airbags. So the radiator supports should concern CAPA as much as the NON-CAPA bumpers and the supports were CAPA certified. In 2015 I had an insurer challenge me to first prove that a CAPA certified Subaru radiator support upper tie bar was not of like kind and quality (a policy requirement of insurers) and later on a Toyota CAPA certified radiator support to prove it was unsafe. In response to this I bought a $2,200 Rockwell Hardness Tester. In both radiator support tests I found that the CAPA certified part was significantly harder that the OEM counterpart it was meant to replace. There is a formula to convert Rockwell “B” scale values to tensile strength. I calculated difference in tensile strengths, between the OEM and CAPA certified aftermarket part to be around a 16,000 psi. The deployment of an airbag could be delayed by a part harder than the manufacturer of the vehicles intended it to be. I then had an insurer recommend a CAPA certified Chrysler hood. The factory hood is made from HSS. I could not tell you the difference as the CAPA certified hood was so soft I could not get a reading on my Rockwell hardness tester. Most recently, at a Congressional Hearing, Jack Gillis was quoted to say, “Well, first and foremost, the parts should be certified to be functionally equivalent to the car company brand part”. Obviously if the parts are not of the same hardness, different metals are being used and they are not functionally equivalent. Based on this information I believe CAPA should immediately decertify all aftermarket radiator supports and aftermarket parts intended to replace HSS OEM parts and to recall and replace all the CAPA Certified aftermarket radiator supports installed on vehicles with OEM supports. Mike Parker President of the Vermont Auto Body Association