HSB698 creates statutory standards for how insurers calculate and pay partial‑loss motor vehicle claims when repairs involve aftermarket crash parts or salvaged components. For first‑party property claims it restricts payments to the cost of aftermarket crash parts that are available from a distributor within 100 miles of the repair facility the insured selects; it also requires insurers to cover modifications arising from using such parts.
For third‑party liability claims the bill requires insurers to base settlement estimates on new original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts unless the owner provides written consent to use aftermarket or salvaged parts and the insurer agrees, in writing, both to pay modification costs and to defend and indemnify the vehicle owner and the repair facility for claims related to those repairs. The measure adds noncompliance with the new rules to prohibited insurer practices and preserves administrative penalties and license sanctions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes distance‑based sourcing for aftermarket crash parts in first‑party partial‑loss settlements and makes new OEM parts the default for third‑party partial‑loss settlements unless the owner signs a written waiver and the insurer agrees to indemnify and pay modification costs. Adds the new section as an unfair practice when insurers fail to follow it.
Who It Affects
Property insurers writing collision/partial‑loss coverages, liability insurers handling third‑party vehicle damage claims, repair facilities chosen by vehicle owners, and regional aftermarket parts distributors within the specified radius. Vehicle owners and repair shops negotiating repairs will face new notice and consent steps.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the calculus insurers use to contain repair costs, constrains where parts prices can be sourced for payouts, and creates contractual and indemnity obligations that affect insurer exposure and repair‑shop risk. That changes claims workflow and could affect repair choices, premium pressure, and litigation risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a standalone statutory rule governing partial‑loss motor vehicle settlements that involve aftermarket crash parts or parts salvaged from the crashed vehicle. For claims by the insured (first‑party), an insurer that relies on a written estimate that includes aftermarket crash parts must limit its payout to the cost of aftermarket parts that a distributor near the chosen repair shop actually supplies — defined as within 100 miles of that shop.
The insurer still has to cover any extra work or modifications needed because a non‑OEM part is used or because salvaged parts are installed.
For claims against a third party (liability), the default measurement for a repair estimate becomes the cost of new OEM parts. Insurers can only propose using aftermarket or salvaged parts after they notify the vehicle owner of the right to OEM repairs and secure the owner’s express written consent.
Even then, the insurer must explicitly agree to pay for any resulting modifications and must provide a written promise to defend and indemnify both the vehicle owner and the repair facility against third‑party claims arising from the use of aftermarket or salvaged parts.The bill cross‑references existing definitions for key terms such as “aftermarket crash part,” “motor vehicle,” and “repair facility,” so those statutory meanings apply. It also makes a violation of the new section an unfair practice under chapter 507B and subjects violators to the department’s enforcement tools, including cease‑and‑desist orders, civil penalties, and license suspension or revocation.
Practically, claims workflows will need new notices and documentation steps, and repair‑shop selection can affect the pool of parts an insurer is allowed to use when computing a payout.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For first‑party partial‑loss claims, insurers must pay only the cost of aftermarket crash parts that a distributor located within 100 miles of the insured’s chosen repair facility supplies.
Insurers must cover any modifications made necessary by installation of aftermarket crash parts or parts salvaged from the crashed vehicle.
For third‑party partial‑loss claims, liability insurers must base payouts on new OEM parts unless the vehicle owner provides express written consent to use aftermarket or salvaged parts.
Owner consent for third‑party claims must be accompanied by the insurer’s express written agreement to pay modification costs and to defend and indemnify the vehicle owner and the repair facility against claims related to the repairs.
Failure to comply is treated as an unfair practice under chapter 507B and can trigger cease‑and‑desist orders, civil penalties of $1,000–$50,000, and suspension or revocation of a business license.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds noncompliance with new section to prohibited practices
The bill amends the listed unfair practices to include failing to follow section 507B.10. That means insurers who ignore the new parts‑sourcing, consent, and indemnity rules can face the same administrative remedies available for other unfair trade practices under chapter 507B. Practical implication: the insurance commissioner can pursue enforcement actions directly under the existing unfair‑practice framework rather than creating a new penalty scheme.
First‑party partial‑loss settlements — local aftermarket parts requirement
This subsection requires property insurers settling first‑party, partial‑loss claims on a written estimate that includes aftermarket crash parts to calculate and pay only the cost of aftermarket parts available from a distributor within 100 miles of the repair facility the insured designates. The provision also obligates the insurer to pay for any repair modifications that become necessary when aftermarket or salvaged parts are used. For claims handlers, this creates a sourcing constraint tied to the insured’s repair choice and a separate line item requirement for modification labor or components.
Third‑party partial‑loss settlements — OEM default and conditional exceptions
For liability claims the statute makes new OEM parts the baseline for estimating repairs and payments. The subsection sets a three‑part exception: the insurer must (a) notify the owner of the right to OEM‑based repairs, (b) obtain the owner’s express written consent to use aftermarket or salvaged parts, and (c) sign an express agreement to both pay modification costs and defend and indemnify the owner and repair facility for claims arising from those repairs. That combination of notice, consent, and indemnity shifts legal and financial risk back to the insurer when it opts out of OEM pricing.
References to definitions
The bill incorporates existing statutory definitions for “aftermarket crash part,” “motor vehicle,” and “repair facility” by cross‑reference, rather than creating new definitions. That keeps interpretation tied to already‑established terms in Iowa law but can produce dependency on how those definitions have been interpreted administratively or judicially in the past.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Vehicle owners seeking clarity: owners gain a clearer default for parts used in third‑party repairs (OEM) and must receive notice and provide written consent before aftermarket or salvaged parts are used, strengthening informed choice.
- Local aftermarket parts distributors within 100 miles of repair shops: first‑party settlements explicitly limit sourcing to nearby distributors, increasing demand for parts stocked by regional suppliers.
- Repair facilities selected by vehicle owners: when insurers agree to indemnify and pay modification costs in third‑party cases, repair shops obtain contractual protection against related claims and clearer payment guarantees.
Who Bears the Cost
- Property and liability insurers: must change estimating practices, track distributor availability within a geographic radius, pay for modification work, and potentially assume defense and indemnity obligations that increase exposure and administrative cost.
- Insurers’ claims operations and third‑party administrators: face new documentation and notice requirements (written owner consent, express indemnity language), plus potential disputes over distributor availability and what constitutes an acceptable modification cost.
- Smaller repair shops and insurers in rural areas: the 100‑mile rule may create logistical and pricing frictions where distributors are sparse, leading to higher parts costs or longer repair timelines that insurers or shops must absorb.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute forces a trade‑off between cost control and repair quality/liability exposure: it limits insurers’ ability to base payouts on the cheapest nationwide aftermarket price while also making insurers legally responsible for the consequences of using non‑OEM parts if they opt into that route — a design that protects owners and repair shops but may push insurers to default to more expensive OEM pricing or to contest repair‑shop choices to manage costs.
The bill’s operational clarity hides multiple implementation ambiguities. The 100‑mile rule mandates that aftermarket parts be ‘‘available from a distributor’’ within that radius, but the statute does not define ‘‘available’’ — whether that means in stock, able to be delivered within a set time, or merely listed in a distributor’s catalog.
That gap invites disputes between insurers, repair shops, and parts suppliers about which price the insurer may lawfully use in a payout.
The third‑party exception conditions (notice, written consent, insurer indemnity) create a heavy disincentive for liability carriers to approve aftermarket or salvaged parts: agreeing to defend and indemnify repair facilities and owners can materially increase legal and claims costs. Insurers may respond by defaulting to OEM pricing in nearly all liability settlements, shifting costs to premiums or prompting insureds and repair shops to negotiate separately with tortfeasors.
Finally, the bill ties the allowed parts‑price pool to the repair facility the insured designates; insurers might seek to engineer fewer repair‑site selections or contest a customer’s chosen shop to influence which distributors fall inside the 100‑mile radius, creating potential conflicts over repair‑shop choice and parts sourcing.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.