President Trump’s recent “Freedom to Fix” initiative has once again thrust the “Right to Repair” movement into the national spotlight. While the Administration’s June 29, 2026 Executive Order is aimed primarily at reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers surrounding vehicle emissions systems and repairs, it has reignited a much broader debate that has simmered for decades: Who should control how a damaged vehicle is repaired—the manufacturer, the repair shop, the insurer, or the vehicle owner?
For the property and casualty insurance industry, this is hardly a new controversy. Long before the phrase “Right to Repair” entered the public lexicon, insurers, automobile manufacturers, collision repair facilities, aftermarket parts manufacturers, consumer advocates, and regulators were locked in a continuing struggle over the use of Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) and aftermarket (“non-OEM”) crash parts. At stake are billions of dollars in annual repair costs, the affordability of automobile insurance, consumer choice, and the quality and safety of vehicle repairs.
The recent federal initiative does not fundamentally alter the legal landscape governing collision repairs. Instead, it serves as a timely reminder that the debate over replacement parts remains as relevant today as it was decades ago. More importantly, it highlights a reality that every claims professional should understand: despite the national discussion, the legality of using aftermarket crash parts continues to be governed almost entirely by state law.
As repair costs continue to climb and modern vehicles become increasingly sophisticated, insurers must balance their contractual obligation to restore damaged vehicles to their pre-loss condition against the equally important responsibility of controlling claim costs. That balancing act has made the selection of replacement parts one of the most heavily regulated aspects of automobile physical damage claims.
Automobile manufacturers naturally advocate for exclusive use of OEM parts. Aftermarket manufacturers argue that quality replacement parts provide consumers with meaningful savings while promoting healthy market competition. Insurers generally support the use of quality aftermarket parts where permitted by law because they reduce repair costs without compromising vehicle restoration. Consumers, meanwhile, often simply want their vehicles repaired quickly, correctly, and without unnecessary expense. Each of these competing interests has shaped the legal framework that exists today.
The economics behind this debate are impossible to ignore. Studies have long demonstrated that if automobile manufacturers maintained an exclusive monopoly over replacement crash parts, repair costs would increase dramatically. Competition from reputable aftermarket manufacturers has helped restrain those costs for decades. Without it, the resulting increase in claim severity would inevitably be reflected in higher insurance premiums paid by consumers.
Crash parts generally include exterior sheet metal and plastic body components such as fenders, bumpers, hoods, quarter panels, grilles, lamps, mirrors, and doors. Replacement parts generally fall into three categories:
- Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts produced by or for the vehicle manufacturer;
- Aftermarket (non-OEM) parts manufactured by independent companies; and
- Recycled or salvaged OEM parts recovered from other vehicles.
Each serves an important role in modern vehicle repair. OEM parts offer the assurance that the component was manufactured to the vehicle manufacturer’s original specifications. Aftermarket parts, however, have evolved considerably over the past several decades. Many are now produced under rigorous quality-control standards and independently certified to verify dimensional accuracy, corrosion resistance, material quality, and overall performance. Recycled OEM parts likewise provide an environmentally responsible and cost-effective alternative in many repair situations.
None of this has eliminated the controversy. Vehicle manufacturers continue to emphasize concerns regarding fit, finish, corrosion protection, crashworthiness, and warranty implications. Aftermarket manufacturers point to significant improvements in manufacturing technology and independent certification programs. Insurers emphasize that quality aftermarket parts increase competition, reduce repair costs, and ultimately benefit consumers by helping control insurance premiums.
The legal system has spent decades attempting to reconcile these competing viewpoints. Unlike many areas of insurance regulation, there is no comprehensive federal law governing an insurer’s use of aftermarket crash parts. Instead, individual states have adopted widely varying statutory and regulatory approaches.
Some jurisdictions simply require insurers to disclose whenever non-OEM parts are specified. Others require the disclosure to appear in a particular format or contain mandatory language. Several states require the manufacturer of the aftermarket part to be identified on the repair estimate. Others require insurers to warrant the replacement parts or certify that they are of “like kind and quality.”
Still others impose additional restrictions based upon the age of the vehicle or require consumer consent before certain aftermarket parts may be installed.
The resulting patchwork of laws creates a compliance challenge for insurers handling claims on a nationwide basis. For example, one state may permit aftermarket parts with little more than appropriate disclosure, while another may prohibit their use on newer vehicles altogether. Some states regulate only visible exterior crash parts, while others address virtually every aspect of the repair process. Several insurance departments have supplemented statutes with bulletins or administrative regulations that impose additional requirements beyond those found in the statutory language itself.
Consequently, claims professionals cannot assume that rules governing a repair in one jurisdiction apply elsewhere. The courts have also played a significant role in shaping the aftermarket parts debate. Perhaps the most widely recognized decision remains Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). Although frequently cited by both proponents and opponents of aftermarket parts, Avery did not prohibit their use. Instead, the Illinois Supreme Court recognized that quality aftermarket parts may be appropriate while emphasizing that insurers remain obligated to fulfill their contractual promise to restore vehicles to their pre-loss condition. The decision underscores an important principle that remains true today: the issue is not whether aftermarket parts may ever be used, but whether the parts selected satisfy applicable contractual obligations and state law.
Subsequent litigation across the country has continued to address issues involving disclosure requirements, consumer fraud allegations, diminished value claims, warranties, repair quality, and insurer obligations. Yet no single judicial decision has created a nationwide rule. State legislatures and insurance regulators continue to define the parameters governing replacement parts within their own jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the aftermarket industry itself has matured significantly. Organizations such as the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) and NSF International have established comprehensive certification programs intended to ensure that qualifying aftermarket crash parts meet demanding standards for fit, function, material composition, corrosion protection, and manufacturing consistency. Although certification does not eliminate every dispute, it has substantially improved confidence in many aftermarket replacement parts and has become an important consideration for insurers and repair facilities alike.
At the same time, today’s vehicles are more technologically sophisticated than ever before. Modern automobiles incorporate advanced driver assistance systems, integrated sensors, cameras, radar modules, adaptive lighting systems, and complex electronics that often interact directly with exterior body components. As a result, replacement part selection increasingly involves considerations extending well beyond cosmetic appearance. Proper calibration, compatibility, and manufacturer specifications have become critical components of many repairs.
These technological developments only reinforce the importance of understanding the legal requirements governing replacement parts in each jurisdiction. What, then, does the renewed national attention generated by the “Freedom to Fix” initiative actually mean for insurers? At least for now, probably less than many headlines suggest.
The Administration’s initiative focuses primarily on expanding repair options involving emissions systems and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers. It does not establish a national standard governing OEM or aftermarket crash parts, nor does it preempt the extensive body of state statutes, administrative regulations, and insurance department guidance that already govern collision repairs.
Nevertheless, the renewed public discussion is significant.
As consumers become increasingly aware of repair rights, manufacturers continue to develop proprietary technologies, and repair costs continue their upward trajectory, legislative attention at both the federal and state levels is likely to increase. The competing interests of consumer choice, repair quality, vehicle safety, environmental considerations, and insurance affordability will continue to shape public policy for years to come.
For subrogation and claims professionals, however, the practical lesson remains unchanged. Compliance begins not with political headlines or national policy debates, but with a careful understanding of the law governing the state in which the claim arises.
A Resource Every Claims Professional Should Bookmark
Because OEM and aftermarket crash parts continue to be regulated primarily by state law, claims professionals need a reliable resource that summarizes the requirements applicable in every jurisdiction. To assist insurers, adjusters, attorneys, subrogation professionals, and collision repair specialists, Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer has comprehensively updated its 50-State Survey of OEM and Aftermarket Crash Parts Laws. It can be found HERE. The survey summarizes the statutes, administrative regulations, insurance department bulletins, disclosure requirements, consent provisions, certification standards, warranty obligations, and significant judicial decisions governing replacement crash parts throughout the United States.
Whether evaluating a first-party physical damage claim, negotiating with a repair facility, responding to a diminished value allegation, or pursuing subrogation following an automobile loss, understanding your state’s unique legal requirements is essential. A repair practice that is perfectly permissible in one jurisdiction may expose an insurer to regulatory scrutiny or litigation in another.
The national conversation surrounding the Right to Repair will undoubtedly continue to evolve. Political administrations will change, technologies will advance, and manufacturers and aftermarket suppliers will continue competing for market share. Yet one principle remains constant: state law—not national headlines—will determine whether aftermarket crash parts may be specified for a particular repair and under what conditions.
For that reason, every automobile claims professional should keep MWL’s continually updated 50-State Survey of OEM and Aftermarket Crash Parts Laws close at hand. It remains one of the most comprehensive resources available for navigating this complex and continually evolving area of insurance law.
For questions about the role of non-original equipment manufacturer aftermarket crash parts or subrogating auto damage claims in general, contact Ashton Kirsch at akirsch@mwl-law.com.
