Insurance bodies in the United States have opposed a bill over concerns of data access and liability fears that could directly affect how workshops get paid.
The Self Drive Act of 2026, which primarily covers issues around autonomous vehicles (AV), was discussed in the Federal US House in mid-January.
According to Autobodynews, two major insurance peak bodies have raised concerns about the bill.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) both submitted letters opposing the Self Drive Act before the January 13 hearing.
APCIA told the subcommittee it opposes the bill's passage "as currently written" because certain provisions would pre-empt state laws. NAMIC expressed concern that language prohibiting state regulations that limit automated driving systems "could infringe on authority around legislation, licensing, operation, and even insurance requirements that we believe are most appropriately left with the states."
The insurance industry's core objection centres on data access. APCIA noted that while the bill protects cybersecurity, privacy and intellectual property, those goals "must be balanced with equally important goals of safety and the insurability of changing risk profiles presented by the technology. Third parties (insurers) need access to vehicle data to meet these goals."
For collision repair shops, insurer data access matters. If insurers cannot properly assess AV risk or determine fault in crashes, claims processing becomes more complicated, and shops bear the consequences through extended cycle times and payment disputes.
However, as reported by Autobodynews, the Self Drive Act's most significant collision repair implication may be what it does not address: who pays for repairs when an autonomous vehicle crashes.
Under current law, when a human driver causes a crash, driver negligence determines liability and the at-fault driver's insurer pays for repairs. But when a fully autonomous vehicle crashes because of a system failure, liability shifts from the human occupant to the manufacturer, making it a product liability question rather than a negligence question.
For shops, the liability shift raises practical questions. If a robotaxi crashes and the manufacturer is liable, does the shop negotiate repairs directly with the OEM rather than a traditional insurer? The bill does not say.
Also of concern is that the Self Drive Act would pre-empt state and local AV regulations, creating a single national framework. For shops in states like California that have established stricter AV rules, federal pre-emption would override those requirements.