Ohio lawmakers introduced legislation that would require auto insurers to give policyholders a clear option to use OEM replacement parts, as repair costs keep rising and arguments over aftermarket components refuse to fade.
The proposal, HB 636, carries the title Auto Insurance Transparency Act and was filed last week by Rep. Mark Johnson, a Republican representing District 92 in the Ohio House of Representatives.
The bill stops short of forcing OEM coverage. It pushes disclosure and choice instead.
Under HB 636, policies excluding OEM parts would still allow OEM repairs if the claimant agrees to cover the difference between the OEM price and the insurer’s cap for a comparable non-OEM aftermarket part. Insurers keep their pricing limits. Policyholders decide what goes on the vehicle. That’s the balance point.
The legislation defines a replacement part as any vehicle component intended to substitute for an original manufacturer-installed part. The wording runs wide and direct. No carve-outs.
If enacted, the bill would also tighten repair estimate disclosures. Any insurer, repair shop, or installer preparing a written estimate would have to clearly identify every non-OEM aftermarket part listed.
Estimates would need to state whether OEM alternatives are readily available and whether choosing them requires repairs at a different facility. They would also need to spell out, in writing, the customer’s right to select OEM parts and pay the cost difference.
One disclosure goes further. In no less than 10-point type, estimates would have to warn customers that aftermarket parts carry warranties from the part maker or distributor, not the vehicle manufacturer. Customers would need to sign off, confirming they received and approved the estimate. No quiet assumptions.
Jason Rhoades, president of the Ohio Autobody Association, frames the bill as a transparency fix with practical side effects. He says it clarifies what parts end up in a repair and reduces friction between insurers, shops, and drivers.
Rhoades also sees a business angle. The structure opens room for insurers to sell OEM endorsements as optional add-ons, adding premium while smoothing claim disputes at the shop level. He calls it a win-win, even if the label won’t land with everyone.
He argues the current system defaults too easily to used, recycled, reconditioned, or aftermarket parts as cost controls. That approach strains credibility with newer vehicles.
A 2025 model repaired with non-OEM components risks losing manufacturer backing, and owners often learn that after the work is finished. Repair shops deal with those conversations daily. Insurers, in his view, trail behind.
