The evolving landscape of vehicle repair, driven by increasingly complex technology, has brought forth new challenges for collision repair shops and insurers alike. A significant point of contention has emerged around pre- and post-repair diagnostic scans, essential for ensuring vehicles are safely and correctly repaired after collisions. Reports from repair facilities across the West, Southeast, and Midwest reveal a concerning trend: major insurers like GEICO and State Farm are pushing back on reimbursing for necessary diagnostic services performed by third-party specialists using tools like Astech Scan Tools and AirPro.
These insurers are reportedly arguing that collision repair shops should handle all diagnostic scanning in-house, refusing to cover sublet charges for services like asTech. One Midwest body shop manager even described State Farm’s stance as “really nasty,” indicating a firm refusal to pay more than a minimal 0.5 hours of mechanical labor for each pre- and post-repair scan, regardless of the complexity or necessity of third-party tools.
This rigid stance from the nation’s top insurance providers raises serious concerns. It demonstrates a potentially flawed understanding of modern vehicle diagnostics, which could lead to increased out-of-pocket expenses for customers, incomplete and unsafe repairs, and overall inefficiency in the repair process.
Neither GEICO nor State Farm provided official comments for this report, highlighting the sensitivity and potentially controversial nature of these reimbursement disputes.
Interestingly, experiences vary even within the same insurer. While the Southeastern repairer faced issues with GEICO, they had no problems with State Farm. Conversely, the Midwestern manager reported difficulties with State Farm but not with GEICO, suggesting inconsistent application of these policies.
Clint Marlow, Co-Chairman of the Insurer-Repairer Relations Committee, acknowledged at the 2019 CIC that new technologies necessitate scans in repair plans. His perspective at the time suggested that insurer-repairer disagreements on scanning should be diminishing. However, recent reports indicate that scan-related friction isn’t disappearing but rather evolving into new forms of dispute.
The core issue lies in the necessity for accurate and comprehensive diagnostic scanning. Industry experts and position statements emphasize that only OEM scan tools and software are guaranteed to function reliably across all vehicle makes and models. Aftermarket tools might miss crucial diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), leading to incomplete repairs, especially in vehicles equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
Utilizing multiple OEM scan tools and accurately interpreting diagnostic results requires specialized skills, often beyond the typical expertise of collision repair technicians trained primarily in bodywork rather than mechanical diagnostics. This skill gap often necessitates the use of third-party services like asTech scan tools, AirPro, or even dealership diagnostic services. Major industry players like Fix Auto, Certified Collision Group, and Gerber have all established partnerships with asTech, recognizing the value of their specialized diagnostic capabilities.
asTech scan tools offer a solution by remotely connecting to OEM scan tools housed in their facilities, ensuring OEM-level diagnostic accuracy. AirPro provides another option, utilizing aftermarket scan tool software but also capable of downloading and operating with official automaker scan operating systems. Both asTech and AirPro provide crucial remote expert support to assist repair technicians in interpreting complex diagnostic data.
AirPro diagnostic scan tool showcased at SEMA 2017, highlighting its capabilities in vehicle diagnostics.
GEICO’s Stance on asTech Scan Tool Reimbursement
The Southeastern shop owner recounted their direct experience with GEICO’s shift in policy regarding asTech scan tool reimbursement. “Since refusing to pay the Astech fee they had been paying us to sublet the scans, so we did the pre-scan… and sent the vehicle through our blueprint process,” they explained. Despite presenting a position statement and invoice for the asTech scan, GEICO reportedly refused payment, not disputing the necessity of the scan itself, but arguing that the shop should possess in-house OEM scan tools and therefore should not incur sublet fees.
This shop had been utilizing asTech scan tools for several years with minimal prior payment issues, charging standard asTech list prices and a half-hour of mechanical labor. However, the situation changed abruptly with GEICO’s new policy.
Similarly, a Western shop using AirPro reported receiving direct communication from a GEICO adjuster stating the insurer would no longer cover sublet charges for pre- and post-repair scans. GEICO’s justification was that shops should invest in their own scan tools, considering third-party scanning a liability choice made by the repairer, not an insurer responsibility. The insurer proposed a default compensation of 0.3 hours mechanical labor for pre-repair and 0.6 hours for post-repair scans, with potential adjustments only if DTCs indicated more extensive work.
The Southeastern shop further noted that some customers were forced to personally cover the asTech scan costs. Their outreach to national and state shop groups revealed a surprising lack of OEM scan tool ownership among collision repair facilities. Furthermore, they observed a concerning trend of shops, even those using asTech, not strictly adhering to OEM position statements, sometimes relying on their own judgment instead. Many shops expressed confidence in aftermarket scanners, believing they adequately cover diagnostic needs.
The shop owner also highlighted internal communication suggesting GEICO’s impending policy change regarding scan reimbursements, creating uncertainty and requiring a strategic response to avoid alienating customers. They reported instances of GEICO informing customers that the shop charges “double” for scans, potentially pushing customers towards alternative repair facilities.
Paradoxically, GEICO, while refusing asTech sublet payments, would reportedly still authorize and pay for scans performed at dealerships, including travel time and sublet markups. However, this option too was eventually denied, further restricting repairers’ ability to obtain necessary OEM-level diagnostics through sublet services. GEICO’s proposed compensation of 0.6 hours for pre-repair and 0.3 hours for post-repair scans was deemed insufficient and arbitrary by the Southeastern shop owner, questioning the basis for these predetermined timeframes.
While GEICO indicated potential for increased compensation if wreck-related DTCs are found, the shop owner rightly pointed out the impossibility of identifying such codes without performing the pre-scan in the first place, highlighting the circular logic in the insurer’s approach. Beyond GEICO, the shop owner cited Trexis as another insurer consistently refusing to pay for any scans, emphasizing that the primary challenge in scan reimbursement was concentrated with GEICO and Trexis.
The asTech diagnostic scan tool system on display at SEMA 2018, showcasing its advanced technology for vehicle repair.
State Farm’s “Nasty” Approach to Third-Party Scanning
The Midwest body shop manager detailed State Farm’s increasingly stringent stance on third-party scanning. Despite a history of reimbursement for services like asTech scan tools, State Farm now reportedly caps payment at 0.5 hours for both pre- and post-repair scans, insisting that repairers should be equipped with first-party scan tools. Notably, State Farm reportedly expresses indifference towards whether these tools are OEM or aftermarket, focusing solely on in-house capability.
Employees at the Midwest shop reported multiple claim denials from different State Farm adjusters, indicating a systemic shift in the insurer’s policy. The manager noted a recent change within a two-week period, where State Farm moved from requesting invoices for scan services to outright rejecting claims exceeding their predetermined time allowances.
While an Allstate representative articulated a similar initial position, the body shop manager expressed optimism about resolving the Allstate issue through negotiation. However, the situation with State Farm was described as unyielding, leaving the shop with the prospect of billing customers directly for necessary scan services.
The Midwest shop manager highlighted a contrast with GEICO, whom they described as generally reasonable to work with, and Progressive, characterized as “great” in claim handling. State Farm’s recent aggressive stance was specifically singled out as problematic and “nasty.” In one instance involving Allstate, the insurer initially limited mechanical labor to one hour each for pre- and post-repair scans on a 2020 vehicle, though Allstate later clarified this was not official policy and open to case-by-case evaluation.
Understanding the Realities of Diagnostic Scanning
The restrictive positions of State Farm and GEICO regarding asTech scan tools and third-party diagnostic services appear to lack a solid foundation when examined against industry best practices and expert opinions.
As a Mitchell representative stated at a 2019 Collision Industry Conference, the complexity of diagnostic scanning, with five distinct methods, makes establishing a fixed book time challenging. None of the major information providers consider scans as included operations, further supporting the need for separate and appropriate reimbursement.
Jake Rodenroth, asTech OEM and industry technical relations director, contrasted the defined time for physical repairs like quarter panel replacement with the ambiguity surrounding scan times. He questioned the origin of the 0.5-hour benchmark imposed by insurers, challenging them to provide data supporting such a limited timeframe. Rodenroth emphasized that insurers are essentially directing repairs without sufficient data or understanding of the diagnostic process.
Rodenroth also pointed out the inconsistency of insurers referencing OEM position statements, which mandate OEM scan tools, while simultaneously pushing for in-house aftermarket solutions. This contradiction highlights a potential misunderstanding of the necessary diagnostic rigor. He stressed that each vehicle presents unique diagnostic challenges, making a blanket, fixed time allowance “incredibly dangerous” and insufficient for accurate and safe repairs.
Chuck Olsen, Executive Director of AirPro operations, differentiated between warranty-related diagnostic work, which often involves pre-identified issues allowing for efficient resolution, and collision diagnostics, which are inherently “failure-based.” In collision repair, the diagnostic process involves investigating a potentially wide range of damage-related issues, making each situation an “adventure.”
Olsen emphasized that the actual scan itself is only the initial step. The substantial time and expertise are invested in analyzing scan results and formulating appropriate repair strategies. He cited examples of AirPro assisting shops for durations ranging from 30 minutes to 2-3 hours per vehicle, with service sessions typically costing $90-$120, reflecting the variable time and expertise required.
Olsen further highlighted the scarcity of highly skilled diagnostic technicians, even within dealerships. He estimated that a typical dealership with 20 technicians might only employ two capable of advanced diagnostics, emphasizing that scanning is a high-level mechanical labor task. He directly addressed the misconception that scan tools automate the diagnostic process, stating, “They’re under the impression that the tool does the work… That’s just a huge misconception.” The critical factor is not the scanner itself, but the expertise and knowledge of the technician interpreting the data. Responding to the question of sufficient diagnostic talent within the collision repair industry, Olsen unequivocally stated, “No, there’s not,” underscoring the value and necessity of specialized services like asTech scan tools and expert remote support.
In conclusion, the pushback from insurers like GEICO and State Farm on reimbursing for asTech scan tools and similar third-party diagnostic services represents a concerning trend. It demonstrates a potential underestimation of the complexity of modern vehicle diagnostics, the necessity for OEM-level accuracy, and the specialized expertise required for proper scanning and interpretation. Forcing repair shops to absorb these costs or rely on potentially inadequate in-house solutions risks compromising repair quality, vehicle safety, and ultimately, customer satisfaction. A more collaborative and informed approach from insurers, recognizing the value and necessity of services like asTech scan tools, is crucial for ensuring safe and accurate vehicle repairs in today’s technologically advanced automotive landscape.
