In South Carolina in 2025, Big Insurance Corporations have launched an unprecedented effort to make it harder for individual consumers to recover from their insurance companies when bad things happen to them. Conservatives need to stand up and call their legislators to make their voices heard.
In South Carolina in 2025, Big Insurance Corporations have launched an unprecedented effort to make it harder for individual consumers to recover from their insurance companies when bad things happen to them. Conservatives need to stand up and call their legislators to make their voices heard.
Ohio lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require auto insurers to offer policyholders the option to use OEM replacement parts. The proposal lands as repair costs climb and disputes over aftermarket parts refuse to cool down.
HB 636, branded the Auto Insurance Transparency Act, was filed last week by Rep. Mark Johnson, a Republican representing District 92 in the Ohio House of Representatives.
The bill doesn’t mandate OEM coverage outright. It forces disclosure and choice.
Under the bill, if a policy excludes OEM replacement parts, the insurer must still allow repairs with OEM components if the claimant agrees to pay the difference between the OEM cost and the policy’s cap for a comparable non-OEM aftermarket part. Insurers keep their pricing limits (see US Auto Insurance Rates by States). Consumers get the final say. That’s the trade.
The measure defines a replacement part as any vehicle component intended to substitute for an original manufacturer-installed part. Plain language, broad scope. No wiggle room.
If enacted, HB 636 would also tighten estimate disclosures. Insurers, repair shops, or installers preparing written estimates would need to clearly identify every non-OEM aftermarket part used.
The estimate must state whether OEM alternatives are readily available and whether choosing them would require repairs at a different facility. It must also spell out, in writing, the customer’s right to select OEM parts and pay the cost difference.
One notice goes further. In at least 10-point type, estimates would have to warn customers that aftermarket parts come with warranties from the parts maker or distributor, not the vehicle manufacturer. No fine print games. Signatures would be mandatory, confirming the customer received and approved the estimate.
Jason Rhoades, president of the Ohio Autobody Association, frames the bill as a transparency fix with side benefits. He says it clarifies what parts go into a repair and puts insurers and policyholders on the same page.
In his view, the structure also opens the door for insurers to sell OEM endorsements as add-ons, bringing in extra premium while reducing friction at the shop level. He calls it a win-win, though not everyone will see it that way.
I think the benefit of HB 636 is going to be transparency; it ultimately becomes a consumer protection issue. Now there’s transparency, so insurers and policyholders alike will know what parts are going on their vehicles.
Jason Rhoades, Ohio Autobody Association president
“I also believe that by putting it in place, there becomes an almost mandatory OEM endorsement that can ultimately benefit the insurance companies. It allows them to sell additional premium, and it’s a win-win for everybody,” said Jason Rhoades.
Rhoades argues the current system leans heavily on used, recycled, reconditioned, or aftermarket parts as default cost controls. That logic breaks down fast with newer vehicles.
A 2025 model repaired with non-OEM components may lose manufacturer backing, and owners often don’t realize it until after the work is done. Shops have those conversations daily. Insurers, he says, lag behind.
The bill adds another layer on parts identification. Any non-OEM aftermarket exterior body part manufactured after Oct. 16, 1990, including sheet metal and plastic panels, would need a permanently affixed manufacturer name or logo before installation. No anonymous panels. Accountability travels with the part.
Enforcement teeth are built in. Any insurer operating in Ohio that violates the act would face penalties tied to unfair and deceptive acts or practices.
That threat alone may change behavior, even if the bill never becomes law.
We think the proposal signals growing pressure on insurers to justify parts decisions, not just price them. Maybe it sticks. Maybe it gets watered down.
Either way, Ohio has put OEM parts back on the legislative table, and the industry will have to respond.
