Quote from glassBYTE:

"Insurers Speak Out Against Washington Anti-Steering Bill H.B. 3053. During Hearing
Several insurance company representatives said the text of Washington State's House Bill (H.B.) 3053 limits its communications with customers when they testified before the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on Tuesday, February 26."

Just about everyone knows what that bill is all about and what it proposes to put a screeching halt to so forget the details.

But, the ****ed gall of those insurance company spokesmen to shed crocodile tears about that proposal limiting "its communication with customers".

Well, boo hoo.

The only communication they need is: "do you have a shop preference in mind?"

Furthermore, under what phony pretext was Belron even involved for input? Did they presume to speak for and represent the entire business of windshield repair and replacement?

Was it supposedly objective input from an industry shop or more certainly input from some skewed vested interest type of entity that the bill is intended to stifle and erase in the first place?

Any third-rate politician should have immediately recognized that Belron's involvement itself indicated a stacked deck and that Belron was nothing but a shill sucking the hind tit of insurance companies attempting to control customer direction and, consequently, pricing structure.

The pimps at Belron are going along with that practice--for now but with future bloated margins in mind.

Down the road, just as now, the insured will end up paying the price as the insurers raise premiums because of less competition.

Assume for a moment that insurance companies were required to distribute customer leads to a round robin list of independents unless the customer requested Belron and that the IGA owned the networks.

Instead of the exact opposite.

And, if the insured requested Belron, IGA network then attempted to steer them back to an independent shop with phony claims about warranty and outright lies about guaranteed work.

What side of the argument would those rapacious dips from Belron be on and how would they spin their stance then?

Unfair competition from independents?

Lack of communication possibilities?

Sorry.

I'll let someone else deal with this complicated topic for awhile.

Blabbalot and his ilk were already stressed out after the first three sentences.

I am pretty sure that if the scenario you raised existed, Belron would do two things:

A) Attempt to put a better product on the table to the insurors and

B) Build name recognition to the level where it overpowered consumer apathy.

I would also guess they wouldn't pass ineffectual laws and start legislative battles against one of the most powerful lobbies in the country (that also comprises a pool of companies they want business from).

There a ton of examples of independents that have done amazing by building name and marketing themselves. Steering didn't EXIST to them because of consumer awareness. Belron bought many of them. Get it?

Has the consumer been hurt by the tpa's? honestly? Ask one. No.

try to write a post without insulting someone as well. It really gets old.

So as long as the consumer does not realize they were steered, or that they had an aftermarket part installed that may, or may not, be equal to the OEM specs on the safety systems for the car, then........

"No harm, no foul" ?????

Sounds like selective ethics to me.

I suppose that as an industry, we can keep hiding behind a 38 year old FMVSS that applies not to us, but to car mfgs, and "hope" that the installation of these parts returns the car to the OEM specs on the safety systems?

Or, better yet, let's tell the consumers that they're the same, and that they meet all applicable safety standards, even though we don't know if they do.

That way, the only consumer that will honestly know if they were harmed by the TPA's when we "honestly ask them" will be few and far between.

Yep, let's not limit the insurer's right to educate their customers; just like the other guy said that worked for Geico, don't tell the customer what's IN his policy. Seems they only want to tell them what they WANT them to hear.

I say if it's about disclosure, then let's give full disclosure. Full disclosure about the benefits in the policy, the CONTRACT of insurance, not just the ones they want the consumer to hear about.

And we have the right to educate consumers as well, now don't we? lol

Oops....wait, that's steering.

lol lol

I'm all confused with all this spin goin' on.....

JMHO

You know what, SAME OLD?

The nom de plume fits.

That is the second post of your's that I have bothered to read this evening and neither of them made one iota of sense to me.

And if I had to hazard a guess, nonsensical to many others as well.

I probably should have learned my lesson from the first one. Talk about self flagellation and masochism.

I quote you:

"I am pretty sure that if the scenario you raised existed, Belron would do two things:

A) Attempt to put a better product on the table to the insurors and

B) Build name recognition to the level where it overpowered consumer apathy."

Huh? Precisely what the hell are you talking about? Is there actually some import and meat hidden within those arcane statements?

And cut the horse manure about insulting people. You rode that same nag directed toward me in your other cryptic waste of my time. That particular equine should have headed for a glue factory some time ago.

I'm insulting Belron which is a company and not a person.

As far as I'm concerned, they deserve every insult that I can toss at them and then some. Take away that Safelite network and there isn't a decent, qualified independent that couldn't and wouldn't kick their ass in the market place one on one.

However...

If apologists like you are any indication of qualified independents (assuming that you are an independent in the first place which seems doubtful), we wouldn't stand a chance.

Smell the coffee.

I have nothing against Belron employees.

Nor am I the least impressed or swayed by vacuous double think and double talk that promotes some convoluted and totally off the wall thinking when it comes to advertising, marketing, sane distribution and wholesale pricing systems and fair lead generation.

Insurers and their slave TPA's depend upon the consumer's fear of "offending" the company and imperiling either their so called "benefits" or not getting their claim paid in full.

Millions of dollars of retained premiums and corporate glass profits are gleaned from that compliant ignorant attitude.


To me, a customer who comes to me deserves the best I have. If the person wants OE, that's his choice not the insurer. In fact, I've never ever had a person request SGC glass for me to install.

Precisely, OPUS.

People are afraid to request someone other than a shop suggested by what they erroneously think is their insurance company's automatic and insinuating referral as to the one and only "qualified and approved" business to perform the work.

But is actually a TPA owned by our independent competitors.

The ignorance of the insured doesn't confound me.

But, the ignorance of too many independents who ought to know better does.

They have absolutely NO idea how much free business is steered past them at the same time that they are spending money attempting to draw in customers.

Or how much Belsafe saves by decreasing their advertising outlay because of millions of dollars of steered business.

And why those jerks can keep lowering prices in certain areas until they eventually drive the independent competition out of business and then raise those prices.

Our independent business needs to cull out the incompetent independents within our ranks.

Stringent certification and licensing is a start along with a demand that they at least complete a college course in Business 101 or pass the first semester in the School of Hard Knocks.

windy in here?

It wasn't until YOU blew in a blast of hot air.

Lay off the pork and beans, LARRY.