Industry Trends - Mitchell International

Volume Nine Number Two
Q2 2009
Published by Mitchell International, Inc.
Industry Trends
Report
In this issue:
Quarterly Feature:
A Deeper Dive
into the Latest
Crash Parts Index
Analysis Yields
Unexpected
Results
Paint & Materials Feature:
Understanding Mitchell RMC: Sorting
Out the Myths & Learning the Facts
The Economy & Short-Term
Energy Outlook
Current Events in the Collision
Industry
Motor Vehicle Markets
New Vehicle Sales
New Vehicle Sales by Company
10 Best Selling Cars & Trucks
Used Vehicle Sales—
Current Monthly Index
Mitchell Collision Repair
Industry Data
Average Appraisal Values
Collision Losses
Comprehensive Losses
Third-Party Auto Property Damage
Supplements
Parts Analysis
Paint & Materials
Labor Analysis
Adjustments
Facts-at-a-Glance:
Automobile Technology Firsts
Total Loss
Canadian Collision Summary
Casualty Statistics
About Mitchell
Mitchell News Releases
Mitchell Brand Advertising at Work

Industry Trends
Report
Volume Nine Number Two
Q2 2009
Published by Mitchell International, Inc.
Table of Contents
3 Quarterly Feature : A Deeper Dive into the Latest Crash Parts Index
Analysis Yields Unexpected Results
7 The Economy & Short-Term Energy Outlook
9 Current Events in the Collision Industry
14 Motor Vehicle Markets
New Vehicle Sales
Used Vehicle Sales
16 Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data
Average Appraisal Values
Collision Losses
Automobile Milestones: Facts At-A-Glance
Comprehensive Losses
Third-Party Auto Property Damage
Supplements
Parts Analysis
Mitchell Crash Parts Index
21 Paint & Materials Feature : Understanding Mitchell RMC: Sorting Out the
Myths & Learning the Facts
Paint & Materials
Labor Analysis
Adjustments
24 Total Loss
25 Canadian Collision Summary
Canada Appraisal Severity
Canada Parts Utilization
Vehicle Age and ACV’s
29 Collision Casualty Statistics
30 About Mitchell International, Inc.
News Releases Q1-2009
Mitchell Brand Advertising at Work
The Industry Trends Report is a quarterly snapshot
of the auto physical damage collision and casualty
industries. Just inside—the economy, industry
highlights, plus illuminating statistics and measures,
and more. Stay informed on ongoing and emerging
trends impacting the industry, and you, with the
Industry Trends Report!
Questions or comments about the Industry Trends
Report may be directed to:
Greg Horn
Editor in Chief, Vice President of Industry Relations
greg.horn@mitchell.com
For distribution and circulation questions, or requests
for back issues, please contact:
Regina Merkey
Managing Editor, Sr. Marketing Communications
Specialist
Distribution and Circulation
(858) 368-7790
e-mail: regina.merkey@mitchell.com
For data analytics, please contact:
Gail Sloan
Sr. Director of Business Development and Licensing
(858) 368-7869
e-mail: gail.sloan@mitchell.com
Additional Contributors:
Manheim analytics provided by Thomas C. Webb,
Chief Economist at Manheim Auctions. Webb has been
associated with the used vehicle market for more than
26 years, including serving as Senior Manager at a
professional services firm’s global automotive practice,
and Chief Economist for one of the industry’s largest
national trade organizations.
The Industry Trends Report is published by Mitchell
International, Inc.
The information contained in this publication was
obtained from sources deemed reliable. However,
Mitchell International, Inc. cannot guarantee the
accuracy or completeness of the information provided.
Mitchell International is a leading provider of information, workflow, and performance management solutions to the
property and casualty insurance claims, collision repair, and workers’ compensation industries. Mitchell facilitates millions of
electronic transactions between more than 25,000 business partners each month to enhance their productivity, profitability,
and customer satisfaction levels. For more information on Mitchell International, please visit our website at www.mitchell.com.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 2

Quarterly Feature
A Deeper Dive into the Latest
Crash Parts Index Analysis Yields
Unexpected Results
BY GREG HORN
Vice President of Industry Relations, Mitchell International
In the last issue of the Industry Trends Report (Q1-2009), we introduced the first series of
findings from our ongoing Mitchell Crash Parts Index analysis. This new feature highlights
data from this continued analysis, which organizes crash parts data into a general “collision
parts market basket” and tracks changes in the average prices of these parts over time.
As we continue to monitor the data, we expect to see fluctuations before establishing a
finalized Crash Parts Index, which we will release in a subsequent issue of the Industry
Trends Report.
The first installment of
the Crash Parts Index
prompted a flood of
questions and requests
from readers for further
data queries. In this issue,
we will respond by digging
a bit deeper and looking
at several of the most
popular cars in the U.S.
and their corresponding
collision parts to provide
a more detailed look at
the parts prices for these
top-selling vehicles. By
The first installment prompted a
flood of requests from readers for
further data queries. In this issue,
we will respond by digging a bit
deeper and looking at several of
the most popular cars in the U.S.
and their corresponding collision
parts to provide a more detailed
look at the parts prices for these
top-selling vehicles.
limiting the index to the three most popular vehicles, we hope to provide our readers with
the insight they are looking for on inflationary trends for the cars most often insured and
therefore repaired in today’s insurance and collision repair market.
The methodology used in this installment mirrors the previous Mitchell Crash Parts Index
analysis—we pulled data from 2003 through 2008 to create weighted average prices for
these parts in aggregate, setting the base year at 2003 and equal to 100. This approach
allows us to compare inflationary trends by part type and vehicle nameplate country of
origin. It is important to remember that the values represented are based on 100 percent
for the base year and related percentages, NOT the actual prices of the parts.
The vehicles used in this comparison were the top-selling models during the 2003 to
2008 time period by country of origin according to Ward’s AutoInfoBank. Domestically,
the Chevrolet Malibu was the top-selling vehicle, while in Japan the Toyota Camry was a
heavy hitter, and the Volkswagen Jetta was a major player from Europe during this time
period. The data for 2003 to 2008 represents various model years and therefore different
model generations (or services as Mitchell refers to them). For example, the data covers
the first generation Malibu initially sold in 1997 and continues through 2003 (combined with
data for identically styled fleet-only sales of the Chevrolet Classic for 2004-2006) as well
as the second-generation model, sold during the 2004 through 2008 model years. Using
this model-specific “market basket” subset provides insight into overall price actions by
manufacturer, which, keep in mind, we will continue to monitor to produce a final version of
the Mitchell Crash Parts Index.
About the author…
Greg Horn
Vice President of Industry Relations,
Mitchell International
Greg Horn joined Mitchell
International in September of
2006 as Vice President of Industry
Relations. In this role, Greg assists
the Mitchell sales force in providing
custom tailored business solutions to
the auto collision industry.
He provides guidance to Mitchell’s
Product Management and Business
Analytics teams, playing an important
role in shaping Mitchell’s solution
portfolio to ensure that it meets
the evolving needs of current and
future clients. Greg also presents
Mitchell’s Industry Trends Updates at
conferences across the country.
Prior to joining Mitchell, Greg served
as Vice President of Material Damage
Claims at GMAC Insurance, where
he was responsible for all aspects of
the physical damage claims process
and the implementation of a unique
vehicle replacement program along
with serving on the GM Safety
Committee. Prior to GMAC, Greg
served as Director of Material
Damage Processes for National
Grange Mutual in Keene, NH.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 3

Quarterly Feature : A Deeper Dive into the Latest Crash Parts Index Analysis (con’t.)
The Data Findings:
Looking at all collision parts for the top three selling vehicles in this instance (Chevrolet
Malibu, Toyota Camry, and Volkswagen Jetta), reveals an unexpected piece of information—
today’s composite price market basket is actually lower than it was in 2003 (See Fig. 1).
This finding is contrary to the prior installment of the Mitchell Crash Parts Index Analysis
(“Top Five Parts Across All Vehicles”) when we looked at hoods and fenders only (See
Fig. 5). The Top 5 Index showed an increase in the top five parts for all vehicles in our repair
estimate database from 2003 to 2008 (See Fig. 2).
To understand this difference, we need to answer a few questions:
1) Are the top three vehicles more likely to have aftermarket or used parts
more readily available because of their popularity and long vehicle
generation cycle,
2) Which part type (OEM, aftermarket, recycled/used or remanufactured)
lowers the price index, and
3) Does selecting more used or aftermarket parts lower of the average market
price for these parts?
Fig. 1 – Top 3 Vehicles, All Parts
110
100
100.00
98.28 98.23 97.47
91.09
90
89.41
80
70
60
50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fig. 2 – All Vehicles, Top 5 Parts
120
119.04
115
115.43
111.39
110
107.08
105
101.96
100.00
100
Looking at all collision
parts for the top three
selling vehicles in this
instance (Chevrolet
Malibu, Toyota Camry,
and Volkswagen Jetta),
reveals an unexpected
piece of information—
today’s composite
price market basket is
actually lower than it
was in 2003 (see Fig. 1).
95
90
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 4

Quarterly Feature : A Deeper Dive into the Latest Crash Parts Index Analysis (con’t.)
If we split all parts in the parts index out by vehicle type, each vehicle model decreases in
average price since 2003 (See Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 – Top 3 Vehicles All Collision Parts Index
115
JETTA
105
95
100.00
97.23
CAMRY
MALIBU
85
88.75
85.40
75
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
If we split out the same data pull by part type, aftermarket and remanufactured indexed
parts actually increase, while new OEM and recycled/used parts decrease significantly in
the price index (See Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 – Top 3 Vehicles All Parts Index by Part Type
120
110
114.97
112.66
REMANUFACTURED
AFTERMARKET
100
100.00
OEM
RECYCLED
90
87.09
80
70
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
75.73
Although you might not think about it, these charts indicate that decreasing new OEM
prices and recycled/used prices are actually driving the overall decrease in the parts price.
So, what’s the link? Pricing schemes.
The relationship between new and used parts trends is affected by the standard practice
of pricing used collision parts at a percentage of new OEM. The aftermarket parts index,
however, has increased despite a fairly steady exchange rate with the Taiwan Dollar,
meaning that foreign exchange variation is likely not responsible for the rising prices.
Price increases accepted by U.S. aftermarket part sellers could be the reasons behind the
increase, as could increased markups on the parts domestically. Remanufactured parts,
often sold through the same suppliers as aftermarket parts, have a similar price trajectory.
Drilling down even further into the data and splitting out the top sheet metal parts price
shows that the Camry is the only vehicle in the mix that has shown an increase in the price
index of top-selling sheet metal parts—hood and fenders (See Fig. 6). The Malibu’s hood
The relationship
between new and used
parts trends is affected
by the standard practice
of pricing used collision
parts at a percentage of
new OEM.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 5

Quarterly Feature : A Deeper Dive into the Latest Crash Parts Index Analysis (con’t.)
and fenders have dramatically decreased in the parts price index, indicating that price
decreases for these parts are contributing to the Top 3 Vehicles All Parts Index decline.
Additionally, the availability of used parts as well as the downward price adjustments to new
OEM hoods and fenders since 2003 has lead to a lower overall part cost for the Malibu.
Fig. 5 – Top 3 Vehicles, Fender and Hood Index
115
110
108.91 108.24
109.40
105
100
95
100.00
97.26
102.94
90
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fig. 6 – Top 3 Vehicles, Fender and Hood Index
140
136.04
JETTA
125
CAMRY
110
95
100.00
96.03
MALIBU
80
65
66.55
50
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
What Does This All Mean?
In this case, the above indexes illustrate that while the Top 5 Collision Parts Price Index is
increasing, segmenting the data by top vehicles can result in the unexpected and divergent
conclusion. Specifically examining the top-selling vehicles by country actually allowed us
to see the part price decreases for that market basket since 2003. Isolating the parts price
index according to these top vehicles by part type helps us understand where pricing trends
are going and how part type pricing is interrelated for vehicles that are commonly insured
and repaired.
Although it might not be something you are used to doing—whether it’s because it seems
daunting or tedious—as you can see, looking at the results of data exploration can really
help you stay on top of trends affecting the collision repair industry.
Isolating the parts price
index according to these
top vehicles by part type
helps us understand
where pricing trends are
going and how part type
pricing is interrelated
for vehicles that are
commonly insured and
repaired.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 6

The Economy & Short-Term Energy Outlook
According to a statement released on April 8, 2009, the Federal Open Market Committee
decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent (.25%). It is
expected that the federal funds rate will likely remain exceptionally low for an extended period
in order to try to continue to foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output as
the economy continues to contract.
Labor market conditions continue to deteriorate, and private payroll employment dropped
considerably over the last several months. Employment losses remained widespread across
industries, with the notable exception of health care. The civilian unemployment rate climbed
1/2 percentage point in February, to 8.1 percent. The four-week moving average of initial
claims for unemployment insurance continued to move up through early March, and the level
of insured unemployed rose further.
Industrial production fell in January and February, with cutbacks again widespread and
capacity utilization in manufacturing declining to a very low level. Although production of light
motor vehicles turned up in February, it remained well below the pace of the fourth quarter as
manufacturers responded to the significant deterioration in demand over the past few months.
The output of high-tech products declined as production of computers and semiconductors
extended the sharp declines that began in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Real consumer spending held steady, on balance, in the first two months of this year after
having fallen sharply over the second half of last year. Real spending on goods excluding
motor vehicles was estimated to have edged up, on balance, in January and February. In
contrast, real outlays on motor vehicles contracted further in February after a decline in
January. The financial strain on households intensified over the previous several months; by
the end of the fourth quarter, household net worth for the first time since 1995 had fallen to
less than five times disposable income, and substantial declines in equity and house prices
continued early this year.
Housing activity continued to be subdued. Single-family starts ticked up in February, and
adjusted permit issuance in this sector moved up to a level slightly above starts. Multifamily
starts jumped in February from the very low level in January, and the level of multifamily starts
was close to where it had been at the end of the third quarter of 2008. Housing demand
remained very weak, however. Although the stock of unsold new single-family homes fell in
January to its lowest level since 2003, inventories continued to move up relative to the slow
pace of sales. Sales of existing single-family homes fell in January, reversing the uptick seen
in December. Over the previous 12 months, the pace of existing home sales declined much
less than that of new home sales, reflecting in part increases in foreclosure-related and other
distressed sales. The weakness in home sales persisted despite historically low mortgage
rates for borrowers eligible for conforming loans. After having fallen significantly late last year,
rates for conforming 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fluctuated in a relatively narrow range
between January and March. In contrast, the market for nonconforming loans remained
severely impaired. House prices continued to decline.
Bank credit continued to decline in January and February, and commercial and industrial
(C&I) loans decreased over these months. Commercial real estate loans outstanding also
declined over the first part of 2009. In contrast, consumer loans on banks’ books jumped over
the first two months of the year because of sizable increases at a few banks that purchased
loans from their affiliated finance companies. In addition, some banks brought consumer
loans that had previously been securitized back onto their books. After 12 consecutive months
of contraction, residential mortgage loans on banks’ books increased in February, likely a
result of the pickup in refinancing activity. In contrast, the rise in home equity loans slowed
noticeably in January and February.
The U.S. international trade deficit narrowed in December and January, as a steep fall
in imports more than offset a decline in exports. All major categories of exports decreased,
especially sales of industrial supplies, machinery, and automotive products. All major
categories of imports decreased as well, with large declines in imports of oil, automotive
Information on the economy and short-term energy outlook was obtained from the US Federal Reserve Board,
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and the US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
(EIA). For more information, or to view original source materials, visit: www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC or
www.eia.doe.gov
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 7

The Economy & Short-Term Energy Outlook (con't.)
products, and industrial supplies. The drop in the value of oil imports reflected a lower price.
Imports of automotive products declined as automakers made significant production cutbacks
throughout North America.
The global economic contraction continues to depress energy demand. In the United
States, overall consumer prices increased in January and February, led by an increase in
energy prices, after posting sizable declines late last year. Excluding the categories of food
and energy, consumer prices edged higher in January and February after three months of
no change.
The annual price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil averaged $100 per barrel
in 2008. The global economic slowdown is projected to cut these prices by more than half, to
average $42 per barrel in 2009 and $53 in 2010.
Gasoline prices have been slowly increasing over the last two months while crude oil prices
have stabilized and refiner margins have recovered from their recent near-historic lows. After
averaging $1.69 per gallon in December 2008, the lowest monthly average since February
2004, the retail gasoline price in February rose to $1.92 per gallon. Retail gasoline prices are
projected to average $1.96 per gallon in 2009 and $2.18 per gallon in 2010.
The U.S. economic downturn is the principal cause for the decline in domestic natural gas
consumption, particularly in the industrial sector—where it is projected to fall by six percent
in 2009—which in turn has led to lower natural gas prices. The Henry Hub natural gas spot
price is projected to decline from an average of $9.13 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) in 2008 to
about $4.70 per Mcf in 2009, but then increase in 2010 to an average of almost $5.90 per Mcf.
Looking beyond the very near term, a number of market forces and policies now in
place are expected to eventually lead to economic recovery. Notably, the low level of
mortgage interest rates, reduced house prices, and the Administration’s new programs to
encourage mortgage refinancing and mitigate foreclosures ultimately could bring about a
lower cost of homeownership, a sustained increase in home sales, and a stabilization of
house prices. The household saving rate, which had already risen considerably, is expected
to eventually level out and cease to hold back consumption growth. Business inventories are
expected come into line with even a low level of sales, and the pressure on production from
inventory drawdowns should diminish. Fiscal and monetary policies are likely to contribute
significantly to aggregate demand in coming quarters.
To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Federal Open
Market Committee will increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further
by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities. This
increase will bring its total purchases of these securities to up to $1.25 trillion this year. The
Committee will also increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to
a total of up to $200 billion.
Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee will purchase
up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. Additionally, the
Federal Reserve has launched the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate
the extension of credit to households and small businesses and anticipates that the range
of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded to include other financial assets.
Real GDP is expected to flatten out gradually over the second half of this year. It is then
expected that it will expand slowly next year as the stresses in financial markets ease,
the effects of fiscal stimulus take hold, inventory adjustments are worked through, and the
correction in housing activity comes to an end.
Little chance of a pickup in inflation is expected over the near term, as rising unemployment
and falling capacity utilization hold down wages and prices and inflation expectations appear
subdued. Inflation is likely to persist below desired levels, with a risk of deflation. Even without
a continuation of outright price declines, falling expectations of inflation are expected to raise
the real rate of interest and thus increase the burden of debt and further restrain the economy.
Information on the economy and short-term energy outlook was obtained from the US Federal Reserve Board,
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and the US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
(EIA). For more information, or to view original source materials, visit: www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC or
www.eia.doe.gov
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 8

Current Events in the Collision Industry
Size Still Matters in Car Collisions, IIHS Says
Minicars fare poorly in crash tests with midsize models
Excerpted From: ABRN—April 2009
ARLINGTON, Va. — Three front-to-front crash tests, each involving a microcar or minicar
into a midsize model from the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and
weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars
generally can’t protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models.
“There are good reasons people buy minicars,” says Adrian Lund, IIHS president. “They’re
more affordable and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new
tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers
downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However,
there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time.”
IIHS didn’t choose SUVs, pickup trucks or even large cars to pair with the micros and
minis in the new crash tests. The choice of midsize cars reveals how much influence some
extra size and weight can have on crash outcomes. IIHS chose pairs of 2009 models from
Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that
earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the IIHS offset test into a deformable
barrier. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-intobarrier
tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded
on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact.
The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the IIHS frontal
offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in frontal collisions with midsize cars.
These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force
and distance. Click on collision for a link to the IIHS crash video and news release.
Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens
to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces
are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which
determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change,
the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second
factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant
compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.
Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two
vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a
disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during
the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and
more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood
of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.
Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1 to 3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle
crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.
“Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively
poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they’re smaller and lighter,” Lund
says. “In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher,
and there’s less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to ‘ride
down’ the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood.”
The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was
35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate
in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is
because many objects that vehicles hit aren’t solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy
have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some
of the energy of the impact.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 9

Current Events in the Collision Industry (con't.)
Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they’re as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But
the claims don’t hold up. For example, there’s a claim that the addition of safety features
to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes.
Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They’ve
been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don’t match the bigger cars
in terms of occupant protection.
Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest
ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at
increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of
all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn’t be
reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter.
Another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in
the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed
for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.
Here’s how the pairs of cars fared in the IIHS new crash tests:
• Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into
the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy’s
head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on
the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg
were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate
a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy’s
head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit’s occupant
compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar’s rating is poor in the front-to-front
crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the IIHS frontal offset test into a
deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.
• Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart
went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement
of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart’s poor performance
but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy
from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering
wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on
the dummy’s head, were poor, as were measures on both legs. “The Smart is the smallest
car we tested, so it’s not surprising that its performance looked worse than the Fit’s. Still
both fall into the poor category, and it’s hard to distinguish between poor and poorer,” Lund
says. “In both the Smart and Fit, occupants would be subject to high injury risk in crashes
with heavier cars.” In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the
occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range.
• Toyota Camry versus Yaris: There was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment
of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar’s door was largely torn away. The driver seats in
both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively.
Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies.
The heads of both struck the cars’ steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head
injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. There was extensive force on the
neck and right leg plus a deep gash at the right knee of the dummy in the minicar. Like the
Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry
is acceptable.
One reason people buy smaller cars is to conserve fuel. Gasoline prices skyrocketed last
year, and there’s no telling what the price at the pump might be next week. Meanwhile,
the gears are turning to hike federal fuel economy requirements to address environmental
concerns. The conflict is that smaller vehicles use less fuel but do a relatively poor job of
protecting people in crashes, so fuel conservation policies have tended to conflict with
motor vehicle safety policies.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 10

Current Events in the Collision Industry (con't.)
A problem with the current structure of fuel economy standards for cars is that the target
of 27.5 miles per gallon is applied to an automaker’s whole fleet, no matter the mix of cars
an individual automaker sells. This encourages manufacturers to sell more smaller, lighter
cars to offset the fuel consumed by their bigger, heavier models. Sometimes automakers
even sell the smaller — and less safe — cars at a loss to ensure compliance with fleetwide
requirements.
In response, the Obama administration announced it is boosting the fuel economy standard
for cars, beginning with 2011 models, and instituting a size-based system to set fuel
economy targets like the one already in effect for SUVs, pickups, and vans. This system
will mandate lower fuel consumption as cars get smaller and lighter, thus removing the
incentive for automakers to downsize their lightest vehicles to comply. It also could mean
that technology currently used to enhance horsepower would go instead to reduce gas
consumption — a direct safety benefit because less powerful cars have lower crash rates.
Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed
limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55
mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved
thousands of lives. Highway deaths declined about 20 percent the first year, from 55,511
in 1973 to 46,402 in 1974. The National Research Council estimated that most of the
reduction was due to the lower speed limit, and the rest was because of reduced travel.
By 1983 the national maximum 55 mph limit still was saving 2,000 to 4,000 lives annually.
“Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic
safety successes in motor vehicle history,” Lund concludes. “The political will to reinstate it
probably is lacking, but if policymakers want a win-win approach, lowering the speed limit
is it. It saves fuel and lives at the same time.”
Vehicle Obstacle Detection Systems Launching in 2009
Excerpted From: CollisionWeek—March 2009
While the promise of road-infrastructure based traffic management is still years away, some
car manufacturers are moving ahead with autonomous radar-based obstacle detection
systems increasing the safety of both drivers and pedestrians.
According to ABI Research, Toyota is planning to add a millimeter-wave radar system to
some of its car models in Japan in 2009. The driver is warned about potential side and
front collisions and when a crash is imminent automatic braking, seat belt retraction and
air bag deployments are initiated. In the US, a similar pre-collision system will be available
on the 2010 Toyota Prius as an option. A similar feature was announced by Hyundai at
CES. However, the current automotive slump will delay the adoption of active safety as a
standard option across all brands.
“Vehicle manufacturers are mainly interested in active safety as a new differentiator,” says
ABI Research Practice Director Dominique Bonte. “However, avoiding accidents has a
huge impact on traffic congestion levels, the reduction of which remains the primary goal
of ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems).”
To realize the benefits of integrated traffic management, ITS requires vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. While many successful tests based on the
Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) protocol are ongoing in Japan (ITS-Safety
2010 project), Europe (ERTICO, CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium) and the US
(DoT’s IntelliDriveSM project), full rollout is not expected before 2015.
In the meantime, ABI says several subcomponents of ITS are already in place. The Toll
Collect consortium introduced GPS-based electronic road tolling in Germany in 2005
with more than 650,000 on-board units installed in trucks so far. In 2008 ERTICO’s Road
Charging Interoperability (RCI) project demonstrated seamless interoperable tolling
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 11

Current Events in the Collision Industry (con't.)
technology in six EU countries. Automatic emergency calling is available with Onstar and
Ford Sync in the US and will be mandatory in Europe by 2013 via the eCall project.
ABI Research’s new “Intelligent Transportation Systems Market Overview” report is part of
two ABI Research Services, Telematics and Location Based Services.
Salvage Vehicle Legislation Sent to Kentucky Governor
Excerpted From: CollisionWeek—March 2009
The Kentucky House of Representatives last week sent a measure to the governor that will
increase the damage allowable on a vehicle before it will require a salvage title.
House Bill 309, approved 36-2 in the Senate on March 11, proposes a change in the
calculation used to determine whether or not the vehicle owner must apply for a salvage
title. For a vehicle to be considered salvage in Kentucky, the amount of damage must
exceed 75 percent of its value just prior to the accident. If approved by the governor, the
bill would exclude the cost of parts and labor for airbag replacement from the 75 percent
calculation.
The legislation would define a salvage vehicle as follows:
(a) A vehicle which has been wrecked, destroyed, or damaged, to the extent that the total
estimated or actual cost of parts and labor to rebuild or reconstruct the vehicle to its preaccident
condition and for legal operation on the roads or highways, not including the cost
of parts and labor to reinstall a deployed airbag system, exceeds seventy-five percent
(75%) of the retail value of the vehicle, as set forth in a current edition of the National
Automobile Dealer’s Association price guide.
The bill adds additional language specifically stating that insurance must pay for airbag
replacement.
(d) Airbag reinstallation costs which are excluded from the seventy-five percent (75%)
computation as set forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be included by an insurer
in the computation of the total physical damage estimate according to the terms and
conditions of individual policies, provided that the total costs payable by an insurer do not
exceed the total retail value of the vehicle.
ADESA Sees Fifth Month of Firming Used Car Prices
Excerpted From: CollisionWeek—April 2009
Rising used car values mean damaged vehicles are more likely to be repaired than totaled,
and ADESA Analytical Services just reported the fifth straight month of rising used car
values.
The firming in wholesale used vehicle prices that began in November continued in March,
with average prices rising sequentially for the fifth month in a row, ADESA analyst Tom
Kontos reported.
On a year-over-year basis, prices are still modestly under water, but the level of submersion
has diminished to almost negligible levels. “With consumers, and hence dealers, actively
seeking used vehicles in these tough economic times, demand, as well as supply,
conditions remain favorable for wholesale prices to continue to firm,” said Kontos.
According to ADESA Analytical Services’ monthly analysis of Wholesale Used Vehicle
Prices by Vehicle Model Class, wholesale used vehicle prices in March averaged $9,880
-- a 5.5% increase over February. Cumulatively, average prices have risen by almost $1,250
since their trough in October, though they remain down 1.5 percent year-over-year.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 12

Current Events in the Collision Industry (con't.)
All vehicle model class segments experienced month-over-month increases in average
prices, and full-size SUVs and pickups were both up year-over-year. Mid-size and full-size
cars also registered year-over-year average price increases.
DOT Posts New Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2011
Excerpted From: ABRN—March 2009
The U.S. Department of Transportation posted new fuel economy standards for cars and
light trucks for the 2011 model year.
The new standards will raise the industry-wide combined average to 27.3 miles per gallon
(a 2.0 mpg increase over the 2010 model year average), as estimated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It will save about 887 million gallons of fuel
and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons.
The 2011 standard will use an attribute-based system, which sets fuel economy standards
for individual vehicle models, based on size. The work on the multi-year fuel economy plan
for model years after 2011 is already underway.
The review will include an evaluation of fuel-saving technologies, market conditions and
future product plans from the manufacturers. The effort will be coordinated with interested
stakeholders and other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.
On January 26, 2009, President Barack Obama directed the Department of Transportation
to review relevant legal, technological, and scientific considerations associated with
establishing more stringent fuel economy standards, and to finalize the 2011 model year
standard by the end of March.
“These standards are important steps in the nation’s quest to achieve energy independence
and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families,” says U.S. Secretary of
Transportation Ray LaHood.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Comments on Newest Seat Belt Data
Excerpted From: CollisionWeek—April 2009
The number of traffic deaths on U.S. roads last year reached a record low, while seat belt
use continued to climb, the U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced. New
state-by-state data shows that Michigan has the highest seat belt use, while Massachusetts
registered the lowest.
Lower fatalities and higher seat belt use are trends we want to see,” said Secretary LaHood.
“States like Michigan are raising the bar on seat belt use, making communities safer and
keeping families intact.”
In Michigan, the belt use rate was 97.2 percent in 2008. By contrast, Massachusetts was
66.8 percent.
The DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 37,313 people
were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2008. It’s the lowest number of deaths on U.S.
roads since 1961, when 36,285 lives were lost. The nation also saw the lowest fatality rate
ever recorded in 2008 at 1.28 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, down from
1.36 in 2007.
The survey shows that jurisdictions with primary belt laws continue to exhibit higher use
rates than those with weaker laws. In Maine, for example, belt use increased from 79.8
percent to 83 percent a year after the state enacted a primary seat belt law.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 13

Motor Vehicle Markets
New Vehicle Sales
According to Ward’s auto, total new light-vehicle sales through March 2009 declined by an astonishing 38.3%
compared to the same period last year. Both foreign and domestic manufacturers suffered serious declines,
with domestic light trucks leading the decline.
Number of Vehicles
Ward’s U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Summary
January-March 2009
0 1m 2m
Domestic Cars
709,124
-40.6
Import Cars
392,486
-28.5
Total Cars
Domestic Light Trucks
Import Light Trucks
Total Light Trucks
Domestic Light Vehicles
1,101,610
865,193
230,436
1,095,629
1,574,317
-36.8
-42.7
-26.0
-39.8
-41.7
Vol % Change from 2008 Sales
Import Light Vehicles
622,922
-27.6
Total Light Vehicles
2,197,239
-38.3
Number of Vehicles
Ward’s U.S. Light Vehicle Sales by Company
January-March 2009
0 1m 2m
Chrysler
Ford
GM
International (Navistar)
North America Total
Honda
Hyundai
Isuzu
Kia
Mazda
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Subaru
Suzuki
Tata
Toyota
Asia Total
BMW
Daimler
Porsche
Volkswagen
Europe Total
Total Light Vehicles
246,047
318,496
409,832
37
974,412
230,985
95,854
441
68,893
53,795
13,834
174,774
41,532
15,131
8,596
359,672
1,063,507
51,244
45,219
4,925
57,932
159,320
2,197,239
-45.6
-42.8
-48.8
-54.3
-46.2
-34.5
0.5
-83.0
1.0
-30.8
-48.9
-35.2
1.6
-42.8
-29.6
-37.1
-31.1
-25.2
-26.1
-27.3
-18.5
-23.2
-38.3
Vol % Change from 2008 Sales
Source is country of manufacture. Domestics are from U.S., Canada, Mexico. Imports are from overseas.
Light vehicles are cars and light trucks (GVW Classes 1-3, under 14,001 lbs.). DSR is daily sales rate.
Source: Ward’s AutoInfoBank ©Copyright 2009, Ward’s Automotive Group, a division of Penton Media Inc. Redistribution prohibited.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 14

Motor Vehicle Markets (con't.)
Ward’s 10 Best Selling
Cars and Trucks
January-March 2009
Cars
1. Toyota Camry
2. Toyota Corolla/Matrix
67,199
59,598
Trucks/Vans/SUVs
1. Ford F Series
2. Chevrolet Silverado
81,579
67,283
Note: Table combines imports and domestics.
Source: Ward’s AutoInfoBank.
3. Honda Accord
4. Honda Civic
5. Nissan Altima
55,279
50,530
49,658
3. Dodge Ram Pickup
4. Honda CR-V
5. Ford Escape
46,619
38,472
31,030
©Copyright 2009, Ward’s Automotive Group,
a division of Penton Media Inc.
Redistribution prohibited.
6. Chevrolet Malibu
7. Ford Focus
8. Ford Fusion
35,600
30,056
28,478
6. Toyota RAV4
7. Jeep Wrangler
8. Toyota Tacoma
28,331
25,450
24,937
9. Chevrolet Impala
27,515
9. Dodge Caravan
23,580
10. Hyundai Sonata
25,657
10. GMC Sierra
22,508
Used Vehicle Sales – Current Monthly Index
BY TOM WEBB
Chief Economist – Manheim
Wholesale Prices Rise in February
Wholesale used vehicle prices (on a mix, mileage, and seasonally
adjusted basis) increased significantly again in February.
Seasonally adjusted, February’s rise was 3.7%, which came on
the heels of a 3.8% increase in January. The Manheim Used
Vehicle Value Index now stands at 105.5, which represents a yearover-year
decline of 2.4%.
Some analysts have suggested that the rapid rise in wholesale
used vehicle pricing is a precursor to an improvement in new vehicle
sales and may even point to a recovery in the overall economy. It’s
more likely, however, that the turnaround in wholesale used vehicle
values is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a better
new vehicle market. That’s especially true given that the recent rise
in auction pricing has been driven in large part by supply dynamics
that were created by the unprecedented slowdown in new vehicle
sales.
Pace of new vehicle sales continues to fall. February’s
seasonally adjusted annual selling rate for new vehicles was only
9.1 million units. New vehicle sales (absent rental and other fleet)
have declined by an estimated 610,000 units in just the first two
months of 2009. If one assumes a normal 60% trade-in rate to the
selling dealer, that means 366,000 fewer units of potential used
vehicle inventory. And, meanwhile, the rate of decline in retail used
vehicle sales has begun to diminish. With forecasters continuing
to lower new vehicle sales forecasts for 2009 (Edmund’s in now at
10.1 million and J.D. Power is at 10.5 million), this supply dynamic
is not going to change anytime soon.
Pricing outlook: up in the short-term, stable in the long-term.
Wholesale pricing has significant upside momentum as result
of the needed bounce-back from 2008’s dismal fourth quarter.
(Seasonally and mix-adjusted wholesale prices are still lower than
they were in any of the first nine months of 2008.) Nevertheless,
with non-seasonally adjusted wholesale prices up nearly 12%
since the start of the year, it will be difficult for dealers to pass
further large increases on to retail customers. More important,
lenders have not, and probably will not, increase permissible loan
amounts to fully offset the rise in inventory acquisition costs.
Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index
February 2008 – February 2009
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
90
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09
Source: Manheim Consulting
Buyers switch to used vehicles. Comments from dealers indicate
that potential new vehicle buyers are opting instead to buy used.
Evidence that these buyers could have actually afforded a new
vehicle is provided by the fact that many of today’s used vehicle
customers are making significant downpayments and the shorter
loan maturity (relative to new vehicles) means that the monthly
payment on their used vehicle loan would often be enough to buy
new.
Tax refunds may be helping more than expected. The IRS has
yet to release any refund statistics for the 2009 tax season to date,
but hints are that the disbursements may have risen substantially.
The increase in the standard deduction, as well as the rise in the
maximum earned income tax credit, has likely been very beneficial
to the used vehicle market.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 15

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data
The following information was assembled from industry-wide appraisal data uploaded from
participating insurance carriers, body shops, and independent appraisers, processed by
Mitchell International and compiled through Mitchell’s AIM (Advanced Information
Management) system.
With the obvious exception of the Total Loss section, all data in this section, including ACV
benchmarks, relate to repairable vehicle appraisals only.
Sections included in the Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data:
• Average Appraisal Values
• Comprehensive Losses
• Supplements
• Paint & Materials
• Adjustments
• Collision Losses
• Third-Party Auto Property Damage
• Parts Analysis
• Labor Analysis
• Total Losses
Mitchell Product Solution:
AIM
AIM
features immediate online data access,
custom report construction, ad-hoc query
capabilities, weekly updates, and the ability to
accept and consolidate detailed appraisal data
from all major estimating platforms. For more
information on AIM, visit Mitchell’s website at
www.mitchell.com.
Development Explained
The following data points are dynamic and subject to change from on-going supplement
and total loss designation activities amending original appraisal values. Average appraisal
values submitted in June, for example, will likely increase by several dollars over the next
few months, then stabilize as all supplements are factored into the final value for the period.
Raw values are provided, and then adjusted based on the observed six-month change
behavior from prior data to produce a projected final or “developed” value. Adjusted values
may therefore be considered reliable approximations of the eventual, industry value for
any given datum. As supplement frequency and severity, as well as total loss designation
activities vary by carrier, we suggest that each company isolate their own development
factors to apply to their own unique data sets.
Average Appraisal Values
The average appraisal value, calculated by combining data from all first and third-party
repairable vehicle appraisals uploaded through Mitchell systems in Q1-2009 was $2,481—
$53 less than the previous year’s Q1-2008 appraisal average of $2,534.
However, when applying the prescribed development factor of 2.5% to these data, it
produces an anticipated average appraisal value of $2,545.*
Average Appraisal Values, ACVs and Age
All APD Line Coverages
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$12,655
$12,818
$13,016
$12,738
$12,316
$11,630
Mitchell Product Solution:
UltraMate
UltraMate ® is Mitchell’s advanced estimating
system, combining database accuracy,
automated calculations, and repair
procedure pages to produce estimates that
are comprehensive, verifiable, and accepted
throughout the collision industry. UltraMate
is a central component of Mitchell’s all-inone
estimating, imaging, and claims workflow
management solution, UltraMate Premier
Suite. For more information on UltraMate
and UltraMate Premier Suite, visit Mitchell’s
website at www.mitchell.com.
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,440
$2,525
$2,450
$2,534
$2,492
$2,481/
2,545
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
5.91
5.89
5.98
6.01
6.20
6.29
Appraisals
ACV’s
*NOTE: Values provided from Guidebook benchmark averages, furnished through Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 16

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Collision Losses
Mitchell’s Q1-2009 data reflect an initial average gross Collision appraisal value of $2,839—
$70 less than this same period last year. Applying the indicated development factor of 3%
suggests a final Q1-2009 average gross collision appraisal value will be $2,927.
On average, Actual Cash Value (ACV) of vehicles appraised for Collision losses during
Q1-2009 was $12,253—$1,171 less than in Q1-2008, reflecting the lowered value of
today’s older vehicle mix.*
Average Appraisal Values, ACVs and Age
Collision Coverage*
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$13,398
$13,553
$14,176
$13,424
$13,021
$12,253
Automobile Milestones:
Facts At-A-Glance…
• Bicycle makers Charles and Frank
Duryea built the first gasoline
powered automobile in America in
1893.
• Founded in 1908, General
Motors was the largest vehicle
manufacturer from 1932 to 2008—
76 years!
• In 1922, Tokyo Ishikawajima
Shipbuilding & Engineering Company
built its version of the British Wolseley
A9—making it the first passenger
car ever made in Japan.
$4,000
$2,000
$2,831
Q3 2006
$2,917
Q1 2007
$2,791
Q3 2007
$2,909
Q1 2008
$2,831
Q3 2008
$2,839/
2,927
Q1 2009
• In November of 1982, the first
American-produced Honda Accord
rolled off the assembly line at the
Marysville, Ohio, Auto Plant.
Avg. Unit Age
5.58
5.60
Comprehensive Losses
5.64
In Q1-2009, the average initial gross appraisal value for Comprehensive coverage
estimates processed through our servers was $2,302, compared to $2,242 in Q1-2008.
Applying the prescribed development factor of 3% for this data set produces an adjusted
value of $2,359—a $117 increase from this same period last year. Q1-2009’s average
appraised vehicle value (ACV) for comprehensive losses was $11,783—a decrease of
$1,381 under vehicles appraised during this same period in 2008.*
5.63
5.78
Appraisals
5.88
ACV’s
• The Chinese automobile industry
officially began on September 28,
1958, when it produced its first
vehicle—the Shanghai Phoenix.
• China’s automakers produced 8.88
million motor vehicles in 2007,
making this nation the 3rd largest
producer of motor vehicles after
Japan and the United States.
Average Appraisal Values, ACVs and Age
Comprehensive Losses
$14,000
$12,000
$12,634
$13,397
$12,968
$13,164
$12,385
$11,783
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,101
$2,096
$2,191
$2,242
$2,358
$2,302/
2,359
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
6.22
6.09
6.26
6.18
6.37
6.40
Appraisals
ACV’s
*NOTE: Values provided from Guidebook benchmark averages, furnished through Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 17

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Third Party Property Damage
In Q1-2009, our industry initial average gross Third-party Property Damage appraisal was
$2,211 compared to $2,269 in Q1-2008—reflecting a $58 initial decrease between these
respective periods. Adding the prescribed development factor of 2.5% for this coverage
type yields a Q1-2009 adjusted appraisal value of $2,245—an overall 1% increase over
Q1-2008.*
Average Appraisal Values, ACVs and Age
Auto Physical Damage APD
$12,000
$10,000
$11,958
$12,078
$11,976
$12,047
$11,703
$11,058
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,145
$2,246
$2,194
$2,269
$2,230
$2,211/
2,245
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
6.03
6.04
6.13
6.24
6.39
6.55
Appraisals
ACV’s
Supplements
Editors Note: As it generally takes at least three months following the original date of
appraisal to accumulate most supplements against an original estimate of repair, we report
(and recommend viewing supplement information) three months’ after-the-fact, to obtain
the most accurate view of these data.
In Q1-2009, 30.01% of all original estimates prepared by Mitchell-equipped estimators
during that period were supplemented one or more times. In this same period, the pure
supplement frequency (supplements to estimates), was 52.59%—reflecting a 2.60 pt, or
6% relative increase, from that same period in 2008. The average combined supplement
variance for this quarter was $556.00—$88.75 lower than in Q1-2008.
Average Supplement Frequency and Severity
Date
% Est. Supplement
% Supplement
Avg. Combined Supp. Variance
% Supplement $
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09 Pt/$ Change % Change
34.39 35.31 33.41 35.26 32.9 30.01 -5.25 -16%
47.66 50.77 46.46 49.99 46.46 52.59 2.6 6%
633.27 641.92 626.59 644.75 648.51 556 -88.75 -14%
25.96 25.43 25.57 25.45 26.03 22.41 -3.04 -12%
*NOTE: Values provided from Guidebook benchmark averages, furnished through Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 18

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Average Appraisal Make-up
This chart compares the average appraisal make-up as a percentage of dollars, constructed
by Mitchell-equipped estimators. These data points reflect a slight decrease in the use of
parts, while the percentage of paint material and labor dollars used in the average appraisal
have increased between these respective periods.
% Average Appraisal Dollars by Type
Date
% Average Part $
% Average Labor $
% Paint Material $
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09 Pt/$ Change % Change
44.38 45.87 44.32 44.99 42.61 44.13 -0.86 -2%
44.68 43.39 44.75 44.09 46.1 44.5 0.41 1%
9.48 9.32 9.65 9.64 10.24 10.26 0.62 6%
Parts Analysis
As a general observation, recent data show that parts make up 44.3% of the average value
per repairable vehicle appraisal, about (.6) points more than the average allocation of labor
dollars. In addition, the current trend reflects a continued decrease in the use of new OEM
parts, likely as a result of the increases in collision parts taken by the manufacturers to
offset increased delivery and storage expenses.
Editor’s Note: While there isn’t a perfect correlation between the types of parts specified
by estimators and those actually used during the course of repairs, we feel that the
following observations to be directionally accurate for both the insurance and auto body
repair industries. This segment illuminates the percentage of dollars allocated to each
unique part-type.
Parts Type Definitions
• Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM): Parts produced directly by the vehicle
manufacturer or their authorized supplier, and delivered through the manufacturer's
designated and approved supply channels. This category covers all automotive parts,
including sheet metal and mechanical parts.
• Aftermarket: Parts produced and/or supplied by firms other than the Original Equipment
Manufacturer’s designated supply channel. This may also include those parts originally
manufactured by endorsed OEM suppliers, which have later followed alternative
distribution and sales processes. While this part category is often only associated with
crash replacement parts, the automotive aftermarket also includes a large variety of
mechanical and custom parts as well.
• Non-New/Remanufactured: Parts removed from an existing vehicle that are cleaned,
inspected, repaired and/or rebuilt, usually back to the original equipment manufacturer’s
specifications, and re-marketed through either the OEM or alternative supply chains.
While commonly associated with mechanical hard parts such as alternators, starters and
engines, remanufactured parts may also include select crash parts such as urethane and
TPO bumpers, radiators and wheels as well.
• Like Kind and Quality (LKQ): Parts removed from a salvaged vehicle and re-marketed
through private or consolidated auto parts recyclers. This category commonly includes all
types of parts and assemblies, especially body, interior and mechanical parts.
Editor’s Note: It is commonly understood within the collision repair and insurance industries that a
very large number of LKQ “parts” are actually “parts-assemblies” (such as doors, which in fact include
numerous attached parts and pieces). Thus, attempting to make discrete comparisons between the
average number of LKQ and any other parts types used per estimate may be difficult and inaccurate.
Mitchell Product Solution:
Mitchell
Alternate
Parts Program
Mitchell Alternate Parts Program (MAPP)
offers automated access to nearly 30,000,000
Remanufactured, Aftermarket, and OEM
Discount parts from over 1,500 suppliers,
ensuring shops get the parts they need
from their preferred vendors. MAPP is fully
integrated with UltraMate for total ease-of-use.
Designated company administrators are also
provided the MAPP Matrix Manager application
free of charge—allowing clients the ability
to manage their MAPP matrices, run four
different matrix reports, add new suppliers/
parts, all from their local platform without the
need for Mitchell support/intervention.
Mitchell Product Solution:
Quality
Recycled
Parts (QRP)
Mitchell Quality Recycled Parts (QRP) is
the most comprehensive source for finding
recycled parts. It gives online access to a parts
database compiled from a growing network of
more than 2,500 of the highest quality recyclers
in North America and Canada, covering more
than 400 part categories representing access
to nearly 44,000,000 parts from recyclers’
parts inventories—updated daily. QRP is fully
integrated with UltraMate for total ease-of-use.
In addition, for selected QRP parts, UltraMate
automatically applies Mitchell’s Assembly Time
Guide labor allowances and P-pages specific to
LK parts replacement.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 19

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Parts Use in Dollars
In Q1-2009, OEM parts represented 71.09% of all parts dollars specified by Mitchellequipped
estimators. These data reflect a 2.75 point relative decrease from Q1-2008. Likely
influences include the fact that many OEM parts makers increased prices in the last year,
resulting in alternate parts becoming more attractive because of their lower prices.
OEM Parts, as a % of Total Parts Dollars per Appraisal
73.8%
74.2% 74.8% 73.8% 73.9% 71.1%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Aftermarket Parts Use in Dollars
In Q1-2009, 11.58% of all parts dollars recorded on Mitchell appraisals were attributed to
Aftermarket sources—up less than a point from Q1-2008. Though up slightly, aftermarket
parts have not seen much of an increase because of the OEM parts price increase. LKQ
parts have seen more of an increase in utilization.
Aftermarket Parts, as a % of Total Parts Dollars per Appraisal
10.2%
10.5% 9.9% 10.7% 10.2% 11.6%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Remanufactured Parts Use in Dollars
Currently listed as “Non-New” parts in our estimating platform and reporting products,
Remanufactured parts currently represent 5.16% of the average gross parts dollars used
in Mitchell appraisals during Q1-2009. This reflects a 0.4 point relative increase over this
same period in 2008.
Non-New/Remanufactured Parts, as a % of
Total Parts Dollars per Appraisal
4.9%
4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 5.2%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Like Kind and Quality Parts Use in Dollars
LKQ parts constituted 12.18% of the average parts dollars used per appraisal during
Q1-2009—reflecting a 1.46 point relative increase from this same period last year.
LKQ Parts, as a % of Total Parts Dollars per Appraisal
11.2%
10.6% 10.6% 10.7% 11.1% 12.2%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 20

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Understanding Mitchell RMC:
Sorting Out the Myths &
Learning the Facts
BY GREG HORN
Vice President of Industry Relations, Mitchell International
Mitchell RMC (Refinishing Materials Calculator) may be the most misunderstood product
that Mitchell produces—yet potentially the most powerful.
The accuracy and utility of Mitchell RMC and similar paint and materials cost calculator
products as alternatives to the standard hourly reimbursement formula have been
recognized by various state regulatory agencies, and Mitchell RMC is endorsed by
many shop associations, which is why it is so beneficial for all industry participants to
understand exactly what Mitchell RMC is and what it does. It’s equally as important to
dispel misunderstandings about what the product does not do in order to understand how
it can go to work for you.
Mitchell RMC is an electronic materials calculation tool that provides complete job-specific
materials costing for imported and domestic vehicles according to year, make, and paint
code and offers an accurate automated itemization of the refinisher’s costs for primers,
colors, clear coats, additives, and other materials needed to restore vehicles to preaccident
condition. Additionally, RMC calculations accurately reflect the translucency of
various paint materials by measuring the amount of material needed to achieve complete
coverage.
Myth No. 1: RMC establishes retail prices for paint and materials.
Fact: Mitchell has absolutely no role in establishing paint and materials pricing, as each
individual paint manufacturer is responsible for setting its own pricing. Mitchell RMC does
use the pricing information provided by paint manufacturers to calculate an aggregate
average for refinisher pricing. While RMC—by no means—reflects or has a role in
establishing retail prices, mark ups to RMC’s calculated prices may be necessary in order
to reflect a normal profit. It is also important to note that RMC pricing does not reflect
possible volume discounts that may be available to large buyers of refinish materials.
Myth No. 2: RMC does not take different paint colors into account.
Fact: RMC uses a database containing over 8,500 specific paint codes to provide paintspecific
materials cost calculations based on a vehicle’s specific paint type and color
rather than using the traditional flat dollar-per-hour costing method. To ensure precise
calculations, RMC categorizes every paint code into one of six levels to determine an
accurate average cost.
Myth No. 3: RMC can only be used in conjunction with Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Fact: Contrary to popular belief, RMC can actually be used in several different ways.
While it is available as an integrated value-added feature of Mitchell UltraMate, it is also
available as a stand-alone Windows ® -based application that can be utilized alongside other
Windows-based estimating platforms.
Myth No. 4: RMC only calculates paint costs and does not incorporate
other materials used in the refinish process.
Fact: RMC calculations are accurate and complete because they include allowances
for solvents, reducers, primers/sealers, catalysts, sanding discs and sanding paper/scuff
pads, tack cloths, masking tape and paper, just to name a few.
Mitchell Product Solution:
Refinishing
Materials
Calculator
(RMC)
Mitchell’s Refinishing Materials Calculator
(RMC) provides accurate calculations for
refinishing materials costs by incorporating a
database of over 8,500 paint codes from eight
paint manufacturers. It provides job-specific
materials costing according to color and type
of paint, plus access to the only automated,
accurate, field-tested, and industry-accepted
breakdown of actual costs of primers, colors,
clear coats, additives, and other materials
needed to restore vehicles to preaccident
condition. RMC is also fully integrated with
UltraMate and UltraMate Premier Suite for
total ease of use. For more information on
RMC, visit www.mitchell.com.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 21

Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Myth No. 5: RMC cannot calculate waterborne paint costs.
Fact: RMC uses waterborne paint tables to accurately calculate and display both solvent
and waterborne paint materials costs.
Myth No. 6: RMC favors one side of the industry more than the other.
Fact: All industry participants—from collision repair facilities and paint companies to
insurance companies, appraisers and independent claims adjusters—can benefit from
RMC’s paint code specific calculations that help write estimates that accurately reflect
refinish materials costs. Because of its paint code specific accuracy, RMC is designed for
this wide range of users who want to accurately reflect refinish materials costs. In fact, RMC
is endorsed by multiple shop associations and paint manufacturers and is increasingly
accepted by insurers as an alternative to flat-rate approximations.
Myth No. 7: RMC pricing isn’t accurate because refinish materials prices
change too quickly for RMC to keep up with.
Fact: Mitchell provides the industry with accurate and up-to-date refinish materials costs
by analyzing pricing data on a monthly basis and instituting a “trigger” that activates an
RMC data update when the aggregate paint price data received from manufacturers
changes by more than three percent. Additionally, Mitchell also reviews paint offerings and
eliminates lines that are no longer commonly used by refinishers in order to ensure that
RMC includes only the most relevant product lines used in the industry.
They say you learn something new everyday…today we hope these examples have
helped you learn the facts about Mitchell RMC while dispelling any myths that you may
have heard about this solution. In today’s increasingly competitive marketplace, the entire
collision repair industry is faced with many challenges, including the paramount need for
estimate accuracy in a constantly changing refinish materials environment. Mitchell RMC
can help meet these industry-wide challenges. See for yourself and sample the power of
the industry’s most accurate paint and materials calculator.
To order your free Mitchell RMC 30-day trial software, click here, or call (800) 238-9111.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 22

9.5% $25.17
9.3%
Mitchell Collision Repair Industry Data (con't.)
Paint and Materials
During Q1-2009, Paint and Materials made up nearly 10.26% of our average appraisal
value—representing a .62-point relative increase from Q1-2008. Represented differently,
the average paint and materials rate—achieved by dividing the average paint and materials
allowance per estimate by the average estimate refinish hours—yielded a rate of $27.97
per refinish hour in this period, compared to $26.48 in Q1-2008.
Editor’s note: The chart shown now excludes comprehensive estimates in the calculations
to avoid seasonal hail related swings in the data reported.
Paint and Materials, by Quarter
$26.48
10.2%
$27.40
10.3%
$27.97
$25.49
9.7% $25.93 9.6%
Q3 2006 Q1 2007 Q3 2007 Q1 2008 Q3 2008 Q1 2009
% of Appraisal $ Rate = Average P&M $/Average Refinish Hours/Estimate
Labor Analysis
Average body labor rates have risen in all of our sample states
compared to the same time period last year. We have added the
state of New Hampshire with its mix of urban and rural areas to
the sample to better gauge changes in New England states.
% Average Labor Dollars by Type
Refinish (33.9%)
Parts Replacement (25.9%)
Parts Repair (40.2%)
Average Body Labor Rates and Change by State
Arizona
California
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Texas
Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Pt/$ %
Change Change
45.11 46.00 $0.89 2.0%
47.54 48.76 $1.22 2.6%
40.80 41.31 $0.51 1.3%
42.74 43.20 $0.46 1.1%
45.90 46.45 $0.55 1.2%
40.59 40.95 $0.36 0.9%
42.24 43.03 $0.79 1.9%
44.53 44.63 $0.10 0.2%
44.87 45.45 $0.58 1.3%
40.89 42.42 $1.53 3.7%
40.76 41.69 $0.93 2.3%
Adjustments
The percentage of overall adjustments to estimates decreased significantly in the first
quarter of 2009, as did the percentage estimates where betterment was taken.
Appearance allowances and prior damage estimates written increased slightly during the
quarter, with betterment dollars decreasing slightly.
Adjustment $ and %’s
Date
% Adjustments Est
% Betterment Est
% Appear Allow Est
% Prior Damage Est
Avg. Betterment $
Avg. Appear Allow $
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09 Pt$/Change % Change
4.62 4.29 4.03 3.79 3.15 1.99 -1.8 -57%
3.55 3.36 3.19 3.02 2.29 1.19 -1.83 -80%
0.6 0.55 0.58 0.55 0.59 0.56 0.01 2%
4.81 4.57 4.67 4.43 4.77 4.96 0.53 11%
111.81 104.28 117.89 110.53 129.62 104.8 -5.73 -4%
181 164.28 170.61 169.5 186.26 174.93 5.43 3%
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 23

Total Loss
The charts below illustrate the total loss data for both vehicle age and actual cash value of total loss vehicles
processed through Mitchell servers. We can see the effect of dismal new car sales, which is aging the overall fleet
of vehicles on the road in the U.S.
Average Vehicle Age in Years
Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1
Vehicles 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009
Convertible 9.76 9.48 9.94 9.67 10.24 10.00
Coupe 10.00 9.92 10.24 10.10 10.41 10.38
Hatchback 10.70 10.74 10.56 10.11 9.97 9.70
Sedan 9.18 9.22 9.34 9.30 9.48 9.56
Wagon 9.44 9.30 9.00 8.63 8.75 8.53
Other Passenger 10.55 10.54 10.84 11.08 11.10 10.24
Pickup 9.83 9.67 9.83 9.74 10.01 9.77
Van 9.58 9.53 9.69 9.58 9.84 9.69
SUV 8.02 8.07 8.26 8.30 8.38 8.52
Average Vehicle Actual Cash Value
Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q1
Vehicles 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009
Convertible $10,101.14 $9,850.28 $10,076.15 $10,270.07 $10,613.47 $9,144.12
Coupe $5,833.18 $5,970.69 $6,091.30 $6,196.31 $5,993.13 $6,012.40
Hatchback $4,631.78 $4,795.36 $5,437.27 $5,622.45 $5,741.52 $5,992.35
Sedan $5,951.45 $5,916.96 $6,116.83 $6,177.32 $6,092.01 $6,038.30
Wagon $6,759.21 $6,868.27 $7,367.90 $7,469.35 $7,209.46 $7,242.08
Other Passenger $12,754.02 $15,650.49 $13,431.56 $13,715.01 $14,189.14 $16,982.02
Pickup $8,897.34 $8,951.20 $9,055.35 $9,326.98 $9,145.00 $8,404.60
Van $5,866.42 $5,632.00 $5,679.35 $5,798.50 $5,576.61 $5,152.27
SUV $9,806.50 $9,239.94 $9,337.48 $9,353.88 $9,253.72 $7,963.58
Mitchell Product Solution:
WorkCenter Total Loss
WorkCenter Total Loss is a state-of-the-art, loss vehicle valuation system designed to: 1) Improve policyholder
satisfaction with the settlement process, 2) Automate Department of Insurance regulation compliance, and 3)
Improve efficiency, reduce settlement time, and manage settlement costs. WorkCenter Total Loss’s valuations are
reliable and easy-to-understand. They’re reliable because they’re based on vehicles recently sold or advertised in the
same area as the vehicle owner. Valuations are easy-to-understand because they are intuitive, and reports include
details on comparable vehicles used in a valuation. WorkCenter Total Loss incorporates a leading-edge analytic
model developed through a partnership with J.D. Power and Associates ® —widely recognized and respected for
their expertise and impartiality. You and your policyholders can be confident that valuations are fair and accurate.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 24

Canadian Collision Summary
At the request of our customers and friends in Canada, we are pleased to provide the following
Canada-specific statistics, observations, and trends. All dollar-figures appearing in this
section are in CDN$. As a point of clarification, these data are the product of upload activities
from Body Shop, Independent Appraisers and Insurance personnel, more accurately
depicting insurance-paid loss activity, rather than consumer direct or retail market pricing.
Average Appraisal Values
The average gross appraisal value, calculated by combining initial data from all first- and
third-party repairable vehicle appraisals uploaded through Mitchell Canadian systems
in Q1-2009 was $3,005—a $64 decrease from Q1-2008. However, when applying the
prescribed development factor of .2% yields an anticipated average appraisal value of
$3,072—a $3 decrease from Q1-2008.*
W
Editors Note: All dollar-figures
appearing in this section are in CDN$.
As a point of clarification, these data
are the product of upload activities from
Body Shop, Independent Appraisers and
Insurance personnel, more accurately
depicting insurance-paid loss activity,
rather than consumer direct or retail
market pricing.
Canada—Severity Overall
$14,000
$12,000
$13,292
$12,858
$13,317
$13,140
$12,714
$12,021
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$3,007
$3,088
$3,062
$3,069
$3,120
$3,005/
3,072
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
5.77
5.58
5.57
5.42
5.37
5.31
Collision Losses
Appraisals
Mitchell’s Q1-2009 data reflects a Canadian average initial gross collision severity of
$3,105—a $61 decrease from Q1-2008. But when we apply the prescribed development
factor, we obtain an estimated final value of $3,175—reflecting a $9 increase.*
Canada—Severity Collision
ACV’s
$14,000
$12,000
$13,198
$12,898
$13,194
$13,207
$12,668
$12,088
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$3,122
$3,217
$3,082
$3,166
$3,095
$3,105/
3,175
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
5.60
5.44
5.46
5.35
5.29
5.27
Appraisals
ACV’s
*NOTE: Values provided from Guidebook benchmark averages, furnished through Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 25

Canadian Collision Summary (con't.)
Comprehensive Losses
In Q1-2009, the average gross Canadian initial appraisal value for comprehensive
coverage estimates processed through our servers was $2,706—or $96 lower than in
Q1-2008. Applying the prescribed development factor of .1%, the anticipated average
appraisal value will be $2,744.*
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
Avg. Unit Age
Canada—Severity Comprehensive
$2,717
Q3 2006
6.30
$13,547
$2,563
Q1 2007
5.99
$13,357
$3,140
Q3 2007
5.79
$13,931
Third Party Property Damage
Q1 2008
In Q1-2009, our Canadian industry initial average gross third-party property damage
appraisal was $2,516—a decrease of $94 from Q1-2008 on vehicles that were slightly
newer, but slightly lower valued.*
$2,802
5.65
$13,714
$3,425
Q3 2008
5.44
$13,664
Appraisals
$2,706/
2,744
Q1 2009
5.38
$12,527
ACV’s
W
About Mitchell in Canada…
For more than 17 years, Mitchell’s
dedicated Canadian operations have
focused specifically and entirely on
the unique needs of collision repairers
and insurers operating in the Canadian
marketplace. Our Canadian team
is known for making itself readily
available, for being flexible in its
approach to improving claims and
repair processes, and for its ‘second
to no one’ commitment to customer
support. Headquartered in Toronto,
with offices across Canada, Mitchell
Canada delivers state-of-the-art, multilingual
collision estimating and claims
workflow solutions (including hardware,
networks, training, and more), worldclass
service, and localized support.
To learn more about Mitchell Canada
and its solutions and services, contact:
Mike Jerry
Vice President and General Manager–
Mitchell Canada
t: 888.209.4338
f: 416.733.1633
Canada—Severity Third Party
$12,000
$10,000
$12,478
$11,669
$12,336
$11,893
$12,279
$11,043
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$2,932
$2,357
$2,388
$2,610
$3,312
$2,516/
2,618
Q3 2006
Q1 2007
Q3 2007
Q1 2008
Q3 2008
Q1 2009
Avg. Unit Age
6.65
6.53
6.09
6.24
5.78
6.07
Appraisals
ACV’s
*NOTE: Values provided from Guidebook benchmark averages, furnished through Mitchell UltraMate ® .
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 26

Canadian Collision Summary (con't.)
Supplements
In Q1-2009, 35.54% of original estimates prepared by Canadian Mitchell equipped
estimators during that period were supplemented one or more times. In the same period,
the pure supplement frequency (supplements to estimates) was 63.41%—reflecting a
7.76% increase over the same period last year. At $295.26, the average supplement
variance was $75.76—(20.4%) lower than the same period in 2008.
W
Supplement %’s
Date
% Est Supplements
% Supplements
Avg Combined Supp Variance
% Supplement $
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09 Pt Change % Change
25.79 31.86 37.15 41.62 39.59 35.54 -6.08 -15%
17.33 53.56 47.81 55.65 44.29 63.41 7.76 18%
458.83 384.15 350.96 371.02 348.6 295.26 -75.76 -22%
15.26 12.44 11.46 12.09 11.17 9.83 -2.26 -20%
Average Appraisal Make-up
This chart compares the average appraisal make-up as a percentage of dollars, constructed
by Mitchell-equipped estimators. These data points reflect an increase in Paint Materials
dollars, with no change in labor dollars. The percentage parts has declined between these
respective periods.
% Average Appraisal Dollars by Type
Date
% Average Part $
% Average Labor $
% Paint Material $
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09 Pt/$ Change % Change
43.19 45.8 42.16 44.07 39.02 43.61 -0.46 -1%
44.33 43.22 46.58 44.48 49.02 44.71 0.23 0%
8.44 8.14 8.57 8.64 8.97 8.94 0.3 3%
Labor Analysis
All data reflect the percentage of labor-type dollars utilized in the construction of Mitchell
appraisals by Canadian estimators. Labor rates rose in all Provinces and Territories; with
Alberta and the Northwest Territories having the biggest increases.
% Average Labor Dollars by Type
Average Body Labor Rates and Changes by Province
Refinish (35.9%)
Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Pt Change % Change
Remove/Replace (24.75%)
Repair (39.35%)
CANADA
ALBERTA
BRITISH COLUMBIA
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR
NOVA SCOTIA
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
ONTARIO
QUEBEC
YUKON TERRITORY
53.66 55.49 $1.83 3%
63.27 67.63 $4.36 7%
64.14 66.67 $2.53 4%
54.06 56.63 $2.57 5%
52.64 54.17 $1.53 3%
72.57 78.11 $5.54 8%
50.93 52.15 $1.22 2%
43.47 44.85 $1.38 3%
79.83 78.33 $1.50 -1.9%
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 27

Canadian Collision Summary (con't.)
Parts Analysis
As a general observation, recent data show that parts make up 44.9% of the average
value per repairable vehicle appraisal, about 0.63 points more than the average allocation
of labor dollars. In addition, the overall trend now reflects a stabilized level of OEM parts
use, an increasing volume of Aftermarket and Remanufactured parts dollars used by
Mitchell-equipped estimators, and declining LKQ (recycled) parts use.
W
Editor’s Note: While there isn’t a perfect correlation between the types of parts specified
by estimators and those actually used during the course of repairs, we feel the following
observations to be directionally accurate for both the insurance and auto body repair
industries. This segment illuminates the percentage of dollars allocated to each unique
part-type.
For Parts Types Definitions, see page 18.
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Parts Use in Dollars
In Q1-2009, Canadian OEM parts use declined ever so slightly compared to Q1-2008
and is in line with the trend in the U.S. on new OE parts use.
Canada—OEM
73.7%
74.0% 75.9% 75.0% 76.2% 74.6%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Aftermarket Parts Use in Dollars
Canada—Aftermarket
Aftermarket parts use in Canada rose slightly compared to Q1-2008 but has remained
fairly consistent for over two years.
10.9%
10.7% 10.2% 11.0% 10.7% 11.3%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Remanufactured Parts Use in Dollars
Canada—Non-New/Remanufactured
Remanufactured parts use in Canada was 3.5% for Q1-2009, compared to 3.38% in
Q1-2008.
3.6%
3.6% 3.2% 3.4% 3.0% 3.5%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Like Kind and Quality Parts Use in Dollars
LKQ parts use in Canada have rebounded slightly in the first quarter of 2009.
Canada—LKQ
11.9%
11.7% 10.6% 10.6% 10.0% 10.6%
Q3/06 Q1/07 Q3/07 Q1/08 Q3/08 Q1/09
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 28

Casualty Statistics
Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
During the fourth quarter of 2008, the 12-month rolling average for countrywide Personal
Injury Protection claims (as calculated from the percentage of such claims reported per 100
insured exposures) was 1.35, and the average claim severity was $8,517.
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0%
$8,500
$8,000
$7,500
$7,000
$6,500
$6,000
$5,500
$5,000
$4,500
Bodily Injury
As of the fourth quarter of 2008, the 12-month rolling average for countrywide bodily injury
paid claim frequency was .91—up from the previous 12-month rolling total of .90 and yet
still lower than the other reported quarters in 2007.
0.96%
0.95%
0.94%
0.93%
0.92%
0.91%
0.90%
0.89%
0%
Countrywide PIP Frequency
1.44 1.41 1.38 1.31 1.35
Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008
Countrywide PIP Severity
$7,767 $7,837 $8,036 $8,397
Countrywide BI Frequency
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.90
$8,517
Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008
0.91
Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008
Editors Note: All information depicted
here is based on the most recent and
available ISS (formerly PCIAA) Fast
Track data, reported one quarter in
arrears.
About Mitchell Medical…
Mitchell’s Medical division has
20+ years experience delivering
successful technology, database, and
service solutions for collision-injury
claim handling that are accurate and
efficient. Mitchell Medical is proud to
serve many of the top P&C Insurers
using both enterprise-wide and
standalone implementations.
Mitchell Medical Decision Point ®
facilitates 1st and 3rd party claimhandling
by automating vital tasks,
thus streamlining claim processing.
Applying carrier-specific business
procedures, claimant-specific
treatment protocols, and Mitchell’s
industry acumen, the majority of
claims are handled without human
intervention from first notice of loss
through payment. Exceptions are
handled via automated assignment to
the appropriate subject matter expert
(nurse reviewer, special investigator,
experienced adjuster). Decision Point
monitors compliance with federal
and state regulations, and includes
powerful analytic capabilities for
predictive modeling and performance
management.
Mitchell Medical’s extensive customer
service infrastructure provides clients
with training, plus systems, content,
regulatory, and litigation support,
process consulting, and outsource
service options.
$12,500
$12,000
$11,500
$11,000
$10,500
$10,000
$9,500
$9,000
$8,500
$8,000
$7,500
$7,000
Countrywide BI Severity
$11,215 $11,373 $11,510 $12,028 $12,434
Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008
To learn more about Mitchell Medical
and its casualty solutions, visit
www.mitchell.com, or contact:
Jeff Pirino
Vice President of Casualty Sales
Mitchell Medical
Jeff.Pirino@mitchell.com
t: 858-368-8381
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 29

About Mitchell
Mitchell International, Inc.
9889 Willow Creek Rd. – San Diego, CA 92131 – 858.368.7000
Mitchell International, Inc., founded in 1946 and headquartered in San Diego, California,
is a leading provider of information and workflow solutions to the automotive insurance
and collision repair industries, serving carriers, shops, and other commercial participants in
the physical damage, auto-related and workers’ compensation medical claims processes.
Mitchell facilitates millions of electronic transactions between more than 25,000 business
partners each month to enhance their productivity, profitability, and customer satisfaction.
From the moment policyholders notify their insurance companies of a vehicle claim,
Mitchell’s state-of-the-art solutions go into action throughout the entire claims and repair
cycle. Mitchell provides the information and workflow management expertise insurers and
collision repair shops rely upon to serve their customers. From initial damage appraisal to
helping collision repairers return vehicles to pre-accident condition, from shop management
to salvage, claims review to subrogation, Mitchell is there to ensure every aspect of the
industry has the tools it needs to get the job done.
All Mitchell collision solutions are backed by Mitchell’s industry-leading Parts & Labor
Database—the most accurate and comprehensive source for vehicle information available
anywhere—which also includes specialty lines such as motorcycles, recreational vehicles,
and watercraft. The Mitchell Database stands as a critical point of connectivity between
shops and insurers, an unbiased resource referenced by all industry participants as a basis
for resolving collision claims consistently and accurately.
Mitchell International is a privately-held company, owned primarily by the Aurora Capital
Group. Aurora Capital is a Los Angeles-based investment firm formed in 1991 that acquires
and builds companies in partnership with operating management. The firm currently
manages approximately $2 billion in capital and is committed to investing in companies
with unique, defensible market positions. Aurora is dedicated to generating long-term value
principally through investing the time and resources necessary to enhance the fundamentals
of each of its businesses.
For more information on Mitchell International, visit www.mitchell.com.
For more information on Aurora Capital, please visit its website: www.auroracap.com.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 30

Mitchell News Releases Q1-2009
Mitchell 2009 Auto Collision Road Show Kicks Off In Los Angeles Area and
Includes Additional Cities
This year’s Road Show includes practical insight to help shops increase business
performance in today’s challenging economic climate
San Diego, CA – March 18, 2009 – Mitchell International Inc., a leading provider of
information, workflow, and performance management solutions to the collision claims and
repair industries, today announced that its fifth annual Road Show will be held from March
24th to October 7th. The 2009 Road Show will visit 12 cities, making its first stop in the
greater Los Angeles area on March 24th, followed by Dallas, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Chicago,
Denver, Detroit, St. Louis, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Caguas (Puerto Rico), and Toronto
(Canada).
Mitchell’s Road Show is designed to educate autobody repair shops on the latest trends,
best practices, tools, and techniques for optimizing business performance. Every year, the
Mitchell team puts together a roster of timely and informative programs, which includes
the most sought after guest speakers who discuss topics that are top of mind for collision
repairers and offer insight to help repair shops provide quality services, increase customer
satisfaction and grow their business. The Road Show event is a once-a-year opportunity
for shop owners and managers to network, share best practices and hear from respected
industry experts and several of Mitchell’s business partners. This year’s Road Show events
will include sessions from select Mitchell paint partners.
“The Road Show events play a key role in our commitment to the collision repair industry—a
practice were proud to continue,” said Jason Bertellotti, Mitchell’s Vice President of Repair
Solutions. “In these challenging economic times, the demand to operate more efficiently
is more intense than ever, and we’re confident that repairers will benefit from the industryspecific
knowledge discussed at these sessions.”
Commenting on last year’s Road Show event, Dennis Carrillo, owner of Foothill Auto Body
in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., said, “The Mitchell Road Show gave me a chance to learn
how some of the market trends are affecting our industry, the things I can do to address
the challenges I face, and valuable insight into where Mitchell is going. I highly recommend
attending.”
Collision repairers who would like more information or are interested in attending, are
encouraged to visit www.mitchellroadshow.com.
The 2009 Road Show will cover a range of topics, including:
• Managing for Profit
• Industry Trends
• New Mitchell Solutions and Innovation
• A Look Inside the Mitchell Database
• Estimating for Accuracy
Mitchell Moves On and Moves Ahead!
Company is energized and focused on providing solutions that promote collaboration
among industry partners
San Diego, CA – March 13th, 2009 – Mitchell International, Inc., a leading provider of
information, workflow and performance management solutions to the Property & Casualty
claims and vehicle repair industries, today announced its path forward after discontinuing
the merger review proceedings with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
“Our team is excited to expand upon the momentum we have created in the market,” said
Alex Sun, President and CEO of Mitchell International. “We delivered a number of exciting
new products in 2008 and have even more in store for 2009 as we continue to execute our
THE 2009 ROAD SHOW SCHEDULE IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:
Tuesday, March 24th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Los Angeles Area
Dave and Buster’s, The Block at Orange
Wednesday, April 8th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Dallas, TX
Dave and Buster’s, Central Dallas
Thursday, April 23rd, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Pittsburgh, PA
Dave and Buster’s, Homestead
Wednesday, May 6th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Atlanta, GA
Dave and Buster’s, Marietta
Tuesday, May 12th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Chicago, IL
Dave and Buster’s, Goldcoast
Tuesday, June 9th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Denver, CO
Dave and Buster’s
Thursday, June 18th, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
Detroit, MI
Dave and Buster’s, Utica
Wednesday, July 15th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
St. Louis, MO
Dave and Buster’s
Tuesday, July 21st, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
San Diego, CA
Dave and Buster’s
Wednesday, September 16th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Dave and Buster’s, Hollywood
Wednesday, September 23rd, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
Caguas, Puerto Rico
Four Points by Sheraton Caguas Real Hotel
& Casino
Wednesday, October 7th, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
Toronto, Canada
Dave and Buster’s Concord
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 31

Mitchell News Releases Q1-2009 (con’t.)
vision of enabling partners to more easily connect and collaborate both inside and outside
their traditional boundaries.”
Over the past year, top tier insurance carriers have selected Mitchell’s WorkCenter
to unify core components of their claims process—from assignment and dispatching to
estimating and uploading of claims for review, to performing total loss valuations and reinspections,
and finally, approving claims for payment. The WorkCenter provides a single
unified workspace built upon next generation technologies that allow carriers to seamlessly
interact and streamline workflows. “We are encouraged that the Mitchell WorkCenter is
receiving such a positive reception from our customers and we are excited to expand upon
this success with major enhancements planned across all modules in 2009,” said Marc
Brungger, Executive Vice President, Auto Physical Damage, Mitchell International.
With respect to the collision repair market, Mitchell will launch UltraMate ® 7 and a new
version of ABS Enterprise. Each of these new releases will deliver dramatic improvement
in product usability and shop efficiency. The company is also announcing the launch of the
Mitchell RepairCenter —a next generation repair-focused collaborative workspace—at
NACE 2009. Mitchell intends to share RepairCenter with select customers in the coming
months.
In terms of casualty products, Mitchell continues to lead the auto casualty and workers
compensation industries with its Decision Point ® , SmartAdvisor and ClaimIQ suite of
solutions. “We are intensely focused on developing solutions that address the full spectrum
of casualty claims,” said Dave Torrence, Senior Vice President, Mitchell Medical. Mitchell
will launch next generation versions of Decision Point and ClaimIQ, and has been selected
by several large insurers for its fully compliant e-billing and payment solution to ensure
compliance in states, such as Minnesota. It has also recently expanded its suite of provider
network services to create the most comprehensive network coverage across the country.
These development plans are the product of an invigorated company that is investing
aggressively in research and development on the heels of the company’s best financial
performance in its 63-year history. “Mitchell is as strong as ever, and I attribute that to
maintaining great relationships with our valued partners,” remarked Sun. “Our product teams
are extremely energized about executing our vision, and as always, our sales and service
teams are committed to upholding our proud tradition of service excellence,” he added.
Mercury Insurance Signs Multi-Year Contract Extension with Mitchell International
Top insurer extends relationship and migrates to Mitchell WorkCenter to improve claims
efficiency and policyholder satisfaction
San Diego, CA – March 03, 2009 – Mitchell International Inc., a leading provider of
information, workflow and performance management solutions to the collision claims and
repair industries, today announced that Mercury Insurance has extended and expanded
its relationship with Mitchell to provide claims processing solutions. Under terms of the
deal, Mercury will migrate to Mitchell’s next generation physical damage claims processing
solution, WorkCenter , which includes Total Loss Valuation, claims management and
reporting components.
“Mitchell has been a valuable strategic partner of Mercury’s for over 15 years, and we
are pleased to expand our relationship to include the WorkCenter suite of solutions,” said
Mike Hall, Mercury’s Vice President of Material Damage.”WorkCenter will help streamline
the claims and settlement processes, allowing us to provide an even better customer
experience.”
“We are excited to continue our relationship with Mercury Insurance on this expanded basis,”
said Alex Sun, Mitchell’s President and Chief Executive Officer. “WorkCenter is a highly
flexible and configurable solution that will allow claims personnel to efficiently complete their
tasks through a single work space.”
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 32

Mitchell News Releases Q1-2009 (con’t.)
Mitchell International Achieves Record Revenues in 2008
Company’s strong performance achieves record revenues and customer wins and sets new
performance benchmarks
San Diego, CA – February 24, 2009 – Mitchell International Inc., a leading provider of
information, workflow and performance management solutions to the property and casualty
claims and collision repair industries, today announced record business performance
results for 2008. Mitchell grew revenue by over 15% on a year-over-year basis and is on
pace to achieve similar growth in 2009—with sales expected to exceed a quarter of a billion
dollars ($250 million). Moreover, Mitchell made substantial gains in new customer additions
who chose Mitchell’s industry-leading solutions to boost operational efficiency, enhance
customer service, and improve productivity. As an example, in 2008 alone Mitchell added
over 2,500 new collision repair shops to its network.
“We are proud of our strong performance in 2008—especially given the challenges
presented by the economy,” said Alex Sun, President and CEO, Mitchell International. “The
fact that Mitchell achieved balanced growth across its key business lines was especially
encouraging.” Mitchell’s physical damage business benefitted from a number of product
lines—WorkCenter Total Loss, WorkCenter Dispatch and ABS Enterprise each more
than doubled revenue year over year, and AutocheX grew by 20%. On the Casualty side,
Mitchell continued its history of success of high double-digit growth with adoption of its 3rd
party (ClaimIQ) and payment solutions. Sun added, “As our business results demonstrate,
Mitchell was, and is, firing on all cylinders—with even more powerful momentum and results
expected in 2009.”
In 2008 Mitchell also maintained an ambitious pace of investment in product development to
fulfill its vision of elevating the level of collaboration between insurance carriers and collision
repairers and introducing innovations for claims automation and performance. “Thanks to
the tireless efforts of our over 1,300 dedicated colleagues and the continued support of our
customer base, Mitchell is stronger than it has ever been,” added Sun.
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 33

Mitchell Brand Advertising at Work
Over the last year, Mitchell has been delivering significant product enhancements—as well
as new product innovations—that continue to delight and meet the needs of our customers.
During that time, we never took our eyes off our vision to propel our customers to the next
level of success with our next generation solutions, like Mitchell WorkCenter for example.
With the merger behind us, it’s time to let the market know this is the best time to be a
Mitchell customer and what “MOVING AHEAD” with Mitchell really means. This is the first
in a series of advertisements appearing in both insurance and collision repair publications.
MITCHELL. MOVING AHEAD.
THE MITCHELL “BREAKAWAY” SEQUENCE
HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY ENGAGED.
We’re propelling our loyal customers, along with the entire
marketplace, on an accelerated ride of innovation and partnership
that has one ultimate destination — your success.
Mitchell is the company delivering product innovations
in 2009 that are guaranteed to blow your hair back!
Move On. Move Ahead. This is the best time to be a Mitchell customer.
(866) 655-2544 or mitchell.com
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 34

Mitchell Brand Advertising at Work (con’t.)
Supporting the Mitchell SmartAdvisor Solutions presence at the RIMS 2009 Annual
Conference & Exhibition in Orlando on April 19-23, (Risk and Insurance Management
Society, Inc. ® ), are a series of advertisements that ask a simple question (“SMART?”) about
whether it’s “smart” to use any other solution than Mitchell’s SmartAdvisor for your
workers’ compensation medical bill review and processing needs. As you can see below,
the shark feeder is being very smart when SmartAdvisor is the solution. The ad series and
the Mitchell exhibit booth use imagery of some of the most risky job professions.
S MART S O LUTI O N S FO R WO R KE R S’ C O M PE N SATI O N M E D I CAL B I LL R EVI EW & PR O C E SS I N G
SMART?
It’s smart when SmartAdvisor from Mitchell is
your workers’ compensation solution.
Take a huge chomp out of your savings leakage
with this high-performance workers’ comp solution.
It’s simply an efficient, waste-killing machine. Get
SmartAdvisor—now from Mitchell.
Visit Mitchell SmartAdvisor at Booth #129 at the RIMS 2009 Conference in Orlando, April 19-23, 2009.
Mitchell SmartAdvisor
Contact Mitchell SmartAdvisor for workers’ compensation solutions: (800) 421-6705 or at mitchell.com
Mitchell Industry Trends Report 35

Industry Trends
Report
Volume Nine Number Two
Q2 2009
Published by Mitchell International, Inc.
The Industry Trends Report is a quarterly snapshot
of the auto physical damage collision and casualty
industries. Just inside—the economy, industry
highlights, plus illuminating statistics and measures,
and more. Stay informed on ongoing and emerging
trends impacting the industry, and you, with the
Industry Trends Report!
Questions or comments about the Industry Trends
Report may be directed to:
Greg Horn
Editor in Chief, Vice President of Industry Relations
greg.horn@mitchell.com
For distribution and circulation questions, or requests
for back issues, please contact:
Regina Merkey
Managing Editor, Sr. Marketing Communications
Specialist
Distribution and Circulation
(858) 368-7790
e-mail: regina.merkey@mitchell.com
For data analytics, please contact:
Gail Sloan
Sr. Director of Business Development and Licensing
(858) 368-7869
e-mail: gail.sloan@mitchell.com
The Industry Trends Report is published by Mitchell
International, Inc.
The information contained in this publication was
obtained from sources deemed reliable. However,
Mitchell International, Inc. cannot guarantee the
accuracy or completeness of the information provided.
Original Cover Photography
Jennifer Therieau, Senior Graphic Designer,
Mitchell International
Layout and Design
Larry Barnett, Creative Director,
Mitchell International
©2009 Mitchell International, Inc. All rights reserved.