Our shop has recently undergone the change over to Waterborne PPG paint line as have numerous other shops.
It has come to our attention that there seems to be a consenus by State Farm, Avia and other large insurers to hold the line on paint material charges knowing full well they are more expensive.
Our current rate for paint materials is $28.00/hr our intention is to pull a hard line on this are other prepared to do the same?

My investigation has shown that waterborne is actually, significantly more expensive to purchase. I looked at cost per sprayable liter(reduced). This new product is reduced only by approx. 20%, therefore we are using a higher percentage of the much more expensive toners. This on top of the fact that the toner per liter is much more expensive. I think that we all should look at the actual cost of this product prior to determining any new material price structure.
In terms of production and usage, we have not found no significant difference between sovent and water, therefore, when your paint company or insurer tells you that " yes, it costs more......but you use a lot less" you need to investigate the truth to this statement before accepting it !

We have the same problem. Although we are waterborne the rate hasn't goen up enough to make it worthwile. Is there a way to get a group of water based shops together so we can try to force insurers to recognize our efforts? I'd like to talk to others. It doesn't matter what paint or if they are in a franchise or not. Lets talk.

If you stop and think about what the insurance companies know, and I mean really know...then you should conclude that they "already know" just how much more expensive waterborne paints are, down to the penny!

If you accept this premise, then the next position you should take is how to gather all those shops who are using such products in your "rating" area and present a common position to all those insurers who you engage in business.

It is not a rate fixing problem, it is a problem of repairing a vehicle while creating a profit wherein the shop increases it's probability of remaining in business so that when the owner receives the repaired vehicle and is told that the work is warranted/ guaranteed, the shop will be in business to do just that.

Remember, there would be no insurance company without a customer who wanted to protect what he or she considered an "asset" first. You are there to fix that asset and guarantee your work. Profit is the primary goal of every business. The insurance company works for the vehicle owner, you work for the vehicle owner.

Common sense, reasonable realities and the common laws of profit creation in business dictate your choices.

How one presents the argument is crucial to defending one's position(s). This is nothing more than a "divide and conquer" game by the insurance industry. Stop the division should be the primary goal. Always has been, always will be.

By stalling for months on "allowing" rate or material increases, the insurance industry knows "exactly" how much money it will be saving and what profits it will be generating while using those funds which should rightly be on your side of the fence.