A CSR from a TPA calls a shop for a mobile w/s install. They are told environmental conditions are not good. They can’t do that install today. The CSR says ok if we can’t find someone equipped to handle it today we will call you back.
The next shop gets the call and knows if they don’t accept it they will loose it. The Manager dispatches a unit to do the w/s install in the unfavorable environmental condition. The Tech does the installation.
One year later the car is involved in an accident. The passenger airbag blows out the windshield and the airbag goes out with it. The passenger is severely crippled for life or dies due to the loss of airbag protection. The vehicle may be involved in a roll over. The w/s breaks loose and the roof crushes flat due to the loss of structural integrity. The driver and passenger are crippled or killed due to this fact.
Is the CSR guilty of criminal negligence for promoting an unsafe w/s install after being informed of the unfavorable environmental conditions?
Is the shop MANAGER guilty of criminal negligence for knowingly dispatching the mobile unit in these conditions?
Is the TECH the sacrificial lamb for both because HE/SHE went out and knowingly performed the unsafe installation that led to crippling or death of the vehicle’s occupants?

I would have to say yes to the CSR and the Manager. In most cases the tech is only doing what his boss is telling him to do and trieing to keep his job. I think that liability falls on the company and the TPA. I had this situation last week turned down 3 insurance jobs because of weather conditions, CSR said she would find another shop able to do it,(mobile) she didn't seem to care at all about the weather conditions. I find if I get the chance to explain it to the customer directly they usually allow me to re-schedule and are grateful that we won't do mobile in bad weather and risk their safety!!

IMHNLO......

"Is the CSR guilty of criminal negligence for promoting an unsafe w/s install after being informed of the unfavorable environmental conditions?"

Yes. If you can document the "disclosure" to the CSR of the conditions.

"Is the shop MANAGER guilty of criminal negligence for knowingly dispatching the mobile unit in these conditions?"

Yes, if you can document the conditions of that day, and that no efforts were made at the install site to deal with those conditions. (tent, heat in the tent, ect ect)

"Is the TECH the sacrificial lamb for both because HE/SHE went out and knowingly performed the unsafe installation that led to crippling or death of the vehicle’s occupants?"

Don't know about sacrificial lamb, but he/she will at least have a share, probably an equtiable share, in the negligence involved, again assuming that all that happened the day of the job assignment/install is documented.

Reasoning: All of these people are professionals in their trade. All of these people should have known better, and/or actually DID know better. The consumer isn't supposed to know better, they rely on all of us to know better. And rightfully so, it's our job, our profession. The CSR, Network, and Insurer are brought in because they actively stuck their fingers into the shop selection(s), and pushed the mobile install with a different shop even after the unfavorable environmental conditions were disclosed to them.

Now, an additional question: How will all this 'negligence' and 'degrees of negligence' play out IF the shop has signed a network agreement with a blanket liability and indemnification clause, where the shop holds the network and insurer harmless? It will leave the shop, manager, and tech holding that liability bag all by themselves.

Again, just In-My-Honest-Non-Legal-Opinion.

If you say "no" to the TPA, then you don't get the chance to explain the unsafe conditions to the person who matters most(the customer). Never say "no", always say "yes" then you can deal with the customer directly, and if you're worried that "charlie is listening" tell customer you have a bad connection, get his/her phone number, hang up, then call them back. Problem solved.

I've never seen as many excellent answers lined up in one thread in a long time.

The only thing I disagree with is calling our present system of networks "TPA's".

Orwellian speech in my humble opinion.

"Network" sounds more foreboding and is much closer to the truth.

I think "Syndicate" hits closest to the mark. It best describes how intertwined all of the major players are.

Or how about "Cartel"?

I would have to go with Glasstech IL on this issue.

It seems ot me that it would be between the shop and the customer. The CSR is located in a totally different area and doesn't care what the weather conditions are. That is not their job. Their job is simply to put the customer in contact with a local shop who can handle their needs.

IF, on the other hand, the customer wants to be completely unreasonable and insists that a mobile install be completed THAT DAY WITHOUT APPROPRIATE SHELTER then it is up to the shop to turn down the job and inform the customer to contact their insurance and arrange for another shop.

Glasstech IL's point is a good one, and further reason to always insist the customer that is (obviously) requesting your shop be brought into the three-way immediately, before any discussion about the customer's needs are discussed.

AGN, I don't think Glasstech was 'letting the network CSR off the hook' so to speak, I believe his intent was to get that customer into the call so they can be made aware of the unacceptable conditions.

The CSR is actively taking part in selecting the shop, selection by the customer, yes, but still actively taking part in the customer's selection with the information the CSR is supplying the customer. IF THAT CSR is not fully disclosing ALL pertinent information to that customer, and the unsafe weather conditions for a mobile install are pretty darn-tootin' PERTINENT, then that CSR is being negligent, possibly intentionally so, bringing up the possibility of it being criminally negligent.

IF that same network CSR ONLY took the information required under FNOL, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, we all know there is a LOT more going on than FNOL.

I don't believe that any blanket liability and indemnification clause the shop signs in the network contract will disolve the network/CSR of this liability, it will only give the network/CSR an 'out' for the damages to be indemnified by the shop for whatever the network/CSR may be found liable for.

The interesting part of those blanket liability and indemnification clauses is, that they seem to focus on civil liability, not criminal. Whole 'nuther nut to crack, that is.

More JMHNLO...

I beleav like anybody else if you are a proffesional at what you do and hold a lisence or a certificate such as a N.G.A. tech. or master certificate it is up to that person to make the call so the buck stops there

Nice rhetoric But Where should the buck be stopped?
The CSR, The SHOP MANAGER or the TECH?

And once again the insurance company that insists his insured be serviced the same day is free of all fault?

It's their stupidity and greed that started the chaos in this industry in the first place.

THEY ARE NEVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING!!!!

But, hey, what's one life here or there?

I would opine that they have not been held accountable "yet".

Hence, the suggestions above to document, document, document.

Now theres a word you don't often see used in this forum.

Opine?

Isn't that some kind of drug they smoke in the Middle East?

I thought he was trying to be facetious about "document". I have that permanently inserted into copy and paste.

Whoops....I've done it again.....

He many have been talking about document I don't know.

I assumed he was talking about "Opine" simply because it was the only word I thouhgt was rare. Guess we'll find out whenever he comes out of hiding.

Yes, I was referring to Mark1's use of the word 'opine.' Proof that there is intelligent life on this message forum.

Before you get your panties all twisted up, I'm just kidding. I'm going back to sleep now.

WEBSTER, TOO MUCH SLEEP IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU, ooopps sorry I'll quit yelling now, but DON'T FALL OFF YOUR chair!!!!

Webster's 8th Edition:

"Opine: a spiny barbed verb which can be an irritant if used improperly"