hal does your company do business insurance or just cars, and can you ask the proper department, if you don't already know the answer.

i was wondering, as you know in order for indpendent companies to participate in the TPA scheme, they sign rediculous contracts assuming liability, and even naming the TPA as additional insured in some cases.

what is the effect of signing those contracts, since i think that would increase the shops exposure to liability, does that mean the shops premiums would be higher, or does that additional liability count against me? Maybe it is different with different companies, i am just wondering if i should have cheaper premiums if i don't sign those contracts, it never hurts to try to save money.

maybe there haven't been enough lawsuits over unsafe practices to even worry about this?

Adding an additional insured to a poliy does not effect the premium. You are not assuming any more liability, since you are doing all the work. The additional insurad endorsement provides protection for the person/company being added. They are using your services and want to be protected for something you might do through no fault of their own.

These liability assignments are why I'm not on most billing services. Under the wrong circumstances you could loose all your liability protection while providing protection to PPG or Safelite or an insurance company. I asked the PPG people about this item in their contract and they said we would never use this. My lawyer said then why is it in the contract. I think that anyone involved in the glass business needs to furnish their own insurance and quit looking for a free ride.

One might also check the language in your liability insurance policy, and reference the contract with the insurer/network you signed.

You may have named someone as an additional insured, but you should check to see if "intentional acts" are excluded from coverage.

If it's there, and you intentionally use cheaper parts, adhesives, or workmanship to fit within an insurer's/network's price parameters (intentionally negotiate with a third party other outside the contract of repair) you may find you have no coverage at all.

The collision folks have been preaching about this for years, and had seveal lawyers speak at conventions on the subject.

Should get your full attention, but most in the glass biz just don't get it. But then, many in the collision biz don't either.

I like the "we would never use that clause" part...just too funny.

your answers got me thinking so simply put?, when i name them as additional insured, my policy that i pay for is also covering them for free?

maybe i need to try to get them to name me as an additional insured, then i can drop all my policies and they can basically pay my premiums, if that is the logic behind that?

Kind of. They still have insurance, but it probably costs them less because they require certificates of insurance and additional insured clauses for everyone that does work for them. If they did not require this, they would be accepting more liability and a very high probability of being sued, based on someone elses actions, so their premiums would be higher. If someone sues them with them listed as an additional insured on your policy, they can use your policy as primary.

The additional insured clause is very normal on many types of policies. It's really not something to even worry about. More important would be a "waiver of subrogation" clause. You don't want that in any contract wording, usless they allow the same clause on your side. Waiver of Subrogation clauses mean that if someone sues you and your insurance company pays the claim to protect you, but then it is found out that they (the company requiring this clause) was partially at fault, your company may not subrogate and try and get some money back. It's a very one sided clause and should always be a "mutual waiver of subrogation" to be fair to both sides.

Been meaning to go back and post this....liability in insurer agreements, from a lawyers point of view.

Paste the link, then scroll to "Examining DRP Contracts" and read on. Very recent opine, June 17, 06.

http://www.vehicleinfo.com/AutoMuse/

HAVE to GO now....people waiting for the cook...ME.

thanks for the link, mark, beats the heck out of me how you can keep this stuff in your head.

that is truly eye opening, and i now i know why hal didn't answer.

Ralph-
I would suggest you discuss this with your business counsel and/or insurance agent. Take your policy and contract with you.

OK, Hal, let's play this out:

What if Ralph's business counsel (attorney I assume you mean) and Ralph's insurance agent, both or either, advise him NOT to sign the network contracts? (As any competent counsel should, legal or insurance)

Then what? Will several of these instances prompt the insurance industry to change the contrats they so enjoy at this point?

Or will liability indemnifications clauses become the dominant factor in remaining on the insurer/network lists, secondary to price?

Right now, the shop has no, repeat NO, negotiating powers in these contracts, they are called an offer and acceptance, but the indemnification clauses are totally legally binding, and even say so in the paperwork.

I want to hear your thoughts on how a contract that is not in the shops best interests via liability, guarantees no work for the shop, guarantees nothing for the shop, in fact, but totally favors the insurer and TPA, is in any way in the shops interests?

How can such a one sided situation be of any benefit to the shop UNLESS there is more going on than meets the eye? (or contract)

Why does ANY shop sign these? I already know the answer, as many do, but I'd like to hear it from your mouth. (keyboard)

Please don't tell me your expertise isn't in the liability insurance field, none of us do, including myself. But we can all read and comprehend, and we all know none of us are giving legal, or qualified insurance advice.

Mark-
If you are offered a contract and you are unsure of the language--seek a local professional opinion before signing.

Many larger companies will insist that they be held harmless for 'your negligent acts'. Perhaps that is
what is causing the confusion?

However, this is about as far as I can go for advice. It is best to see a local professional.

Great find, Mark1. I have read this before. Got it from collision associate. You won't get any response from anyone on the insurance end.

The best advice I can give is what Erica clearly states. Don't sign them (DRP's) in their current form.

Unless you get some consideration, these agreements remind me of the movie, "True Lies" with Arnold and Jamie Lee Curtis. When Arnold and his wife are captured by the terrorists and they give him the "truth" serum, Jamie Lee asks him if he ever killed anybody. Arnold (clearly under the influence of the drug) replies, "Yes, but they were all bad."

Hal, respectfully, I didn't ask any questions about being unsure of the language of these contracts. I think we are all reading them quite clearly, which is the purpose of this discussion.

As to many businesses requiring them, I disagree completely. While I have seen some try, by slipping in such a liability and indemnification into the fine print, NOT ONE has refused the contract AFTER we eliminated the clause and submitted the altered contract. Such attempts include "if our customer or employee slips and falls through your glass" type of language.

Assuming liability for our business' actions or negligence isn't the issue, that's normal and proper. Assuming the insurer's or network's liability IS the issue, and that bold move hasn't even been attempted in the contracts I believe you are speaking of, yet seem to be common in the network/insurer contracts, and, again, are NON NEGOTIABLE.

This brings us full circle back to my previous post, and my original questions which you have not answered.

Who the heck is HAL and does he like know that PPG Likes the chinese food?

I argee. I would not wish to assume liability for the acts of others either!