To amend section 1345.81 and to enact sections 3937.51, 3937.52, 3937.53, and 3937.54 of the Revised Code to require certain disclosures, allow consumer choice concerning the use of aftermarket motor vehicle parts, to require the offering of coverage for original equipment manufacturer parts, and to name this act the Auto Insurance Transparency Act.
HB636, titled the Auto Insurance Transparency Act, would change Ohio law governing auto repair estimates and automobile insurance coverage for vehicle body parts. The bill requires insurers, repair facilities, and installers to provide clear written disclosures when a repair estimate relies on non-original equipment manufacturer (non-OEM) aftermarket crash replacement parts. Those disclosures must identify the aftermarket parts, state whether OEM parts are readily available, explain the consumer’s right to choose OEM parts even if they cost more than the policy’s standard coverage, and include a prominent notice that warranties on aftermarket parts come from the parts maker or distributor rather than the vehicle manufacturer. If the consumer receives only an oral estimate or no estimate, the same notice must be provided orally or in writing with the final invoice.
The bill also creates a new insurance coverage option called OEM part repair coverage. Every insurer issuing, renewing, or delivering an automobile policy in Ohio that covers damage to a covered vehicle would have to clearly and conspicuously offer this optional coverage. The coverage would pay for OEM replacement parts, including any added costs associated with using OEM parts or sending the repair to another facility because of OEM-part requirements. The bill says policyholders are not required to buy this coverage, but insurers may adjust premiums on an actuarially justified basis if they do. It also allows the use of salvage parts if they are like kind and quality and come from a licensed salvage dealer.
HB636 would amend existing consumer protection law by making violations of the disclosure requirements an unfair and deceptive act or practice in insurance, and by treating other violations in consumer transactions as unfair and deceptive practices under Ohio’s consumer sales laws. It would also repeal the current version of Revised Code section 1345.81 and replace it with a broader framework covering aftermarket part disclosures and consumer choice. In practical terms, the bill would affect insurers, auto body shops, repair facilities, installers, and consumers involved in collision repairs and insurance claims.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is consumer-protection oriented: it emphasizes transparency, informed consent, and the ability of vehicle owners to choose OEM parts if they are willing to pay the difference. Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate in the record here. The main likely point of contention is cost and repair flexibility: consumer advocates may favor the added disclosure and OEM choice, while insurers and repair businesses may be concerned about higher claim costs, administrative burdens, and potential delays if OEM parts require different sourcing or repair locations.
HB636 would significantly revise Ohio’s auto repair and insurance disclosure rules by imposing mandatory estimate notices for non-OEM aftermarket crash replacement parts and by creating a new statutory requirement that insurers offer optional OEM part repair coverage. It would also expand the state’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices framework to cover violations of these provisions, giving the insurance superintendent enforcement authority and potential reimbursement remedies. The bill would directly affect automobile insurers, repair facilities, body shops, installers, salvage parts dealers, and insured drivers seeking collision repairs.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is strongly consumer-focused, aiming to increase transparency and preserve consumer choice in auto repairs. Because the bill was introduced without recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure seems designed to appeal to consumers who prefer OEM parts and to those concerned about hidden differences between OEM and aftermarket repairs.
The main likely contention is between consumer choice and repair/insurance cost control. Supporters would likely emphasize clearer disclosures, the right to choose OEM parts, and better warranty transparency. Opponents or skeptics may argue that requiring OEM coverage offers and detailed disclosures could increase premiums, complicate claims handling, and reduce the use of lower-cost aftermarket parts or salvage parts. Another possible point of dispute is whether the bill’s requirements could slow repairs when OEM parts are not readily available or when a different repair facility is needed.