The California/Nevada/Arizona Automotive Wholesalers' Association (CAWA) is known for its ability to sniff out legislation that could pose a threat to its members long before the suggested bills have a negative impact on the aftermarket. Recently, the group and industry power players banded together to take on SB 1059, a bill seeking to make it unlawful for any insurer to require the installation of an aftermarket part — if the part to be replaced is under the existing original manufacturer's warranty — during the first three years of a vehicle's life. The bill was soundly defeated within the California legislature, and is (in legalistic jargon) "dead."

"The coalition is proud of what it achieved, and would like to thank everybody for their effort in this battle," says Rodney Pierini, CAWA president and CEO. "This was truly a coalition effort, with a lot of people involved in the process. One of the keys to our success in regards to this bill is that our members rallied together to defeat this bill by writing and calling their legislators to talk about the impact it would have on their businesses. This was clearly an integral part of our success."

In addition to CAWA's members, Pierini says that the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), the Coalition for Auto Repair Equity (CARE), the Association of California Insurance Companies, the Auto Body Parts Association, the California Retailers Association, the Center for Auto Safety, the Certified Automotive Parts Association, LKQ Corporation/Keystone Automotive and the Personal Insurance Federation of California joined together in opposition to SB 1059. Interestingly enough, the California Autobody Association (CAA) parted ways with CAWA on this issue and lobbied in support of the bill, along with the Collision Repair Association of California (CRAC).

"The bill's language tried to prohibit insurers from requiring the installation of an aftermarket part and it tried to prohibit the purchase of an OE part while only paying for an aftermarket part," he adds. "But what that is doing, albeit in a very subtle manner, is telling consumers that aftermarket parts are bad, and OE parts are superior to them. If it had passed, the bill would pretty much have guaranteed the sale of OE parts to customers in a repair situation by making aftermarket parts appear less attractive to drivers."

Still, Plotkin says that the coalition didn't come out against the bill immediately, because — as originally worded — it would have mainly affected the collision segment of the aftermarket. But when proponents of the bill altered the language to include both collision parts and mechanical parts in the three-year parts replacement moratorium, the coalition geared up for battle.

"It's war. These folks [CRAC] invested a lot in this fight," says Plotkin, an ex-marine who has no problem comparing his stint in the political arena to his combat experiences. "And I don't just mean that they invested time, money and energy — I mean that they invested ego. Because this was such a personal fight for them, the defeat is just that much more bitter. We're being very vigilant to make sure that this language doesn't crop up as an amendment in the other bills they may choose to support."