Anyone from the mass area?????
Just got a letter from Safety Ins. that states starting Oct.16 we are required to take pictures of all glass before job is performed. Then we have to upload them to there website.
Called and left a message for the person handling the process.
Has anyone else heard of this, or are already doing this?????????????????????????
They also gave a wed add. to go and read more anout this and it does not work.

They expect you to invest in a digital camera and a (if you don't already have) system that's capable of this "service", yet they can't get their website operational OMG. I'll just bet you're not being offered any extra $$$ for this service are you? Hell isn't that the adjusters job, if they want that kind of documentation of every claim, including glass replacement they should be prepared to send an adjuster, or at least have insured drive to their office to verify damages. THIS IS ABSURD AND GOING WAY TOO FAR. Is it on every job, or is there just some question about this job in particular?

Plz post the www addy, i'd like to check it out. thx

ASAG,
Please tell me you are joking about this !!. The next thing you see, the networks will be following suit. I totally agree with Hawk, this should be the adjusters job, not the installers.

Magician, I'd like that addy as well.

Years ago Liberty Mutual had to have pics of the glass and plate # in order to process the claim they stopped that about 15 years ago (I think they had a stake in polariod)

Just say no.

Just got off the phone with the Safety, (45 min long call I do not get paid for). Boil down they are doing this to prevent insurance scams. They were thinking of doing the adjuster route but they found out that it would take to long to send someone out to look at it and they might have to pay for car rentals.
Here is the website
https://www.radicalglass.com/glass_photos_help.pdf
It now works.
They want three pic. for every car we do and it must be done asap.
So now let the whole ind. see this and everyone is going to want this done. Talked with the guy about pricing increase he said they can not do that. Talked about the up front cost of the cameras, ( I need at least three), to bad was the answer.


These days are not Kodak moments

Common practice in collision.

Most 'member' shops bite the bullet and do this for free. ("or else", of course)

Others simply charge for it. It's the insurance company's right to pre-inspect the car, even for autoglass claims, it's in most policies. Of course, they don't EVER, but I have had this come up for reasons of denial of payment, because the insurer didn't have the 'opportunity' to inspect the car before work was done, even though the policyholder phoned in the claim to/through the network just as 'required'.

That does NOT make it the shops job to do their work for them, that's what they have adjusters for. They can always send an adjuster out to pre-inspect.

Now, what you want to watch for here, is for 'SOME' shops to be 'approved' to do the 'pre-inspection', while 'some other shops' are not authorized to.

The crossing of the line between an adjuster and a service provider creates an obvious conflict of interest. Has this been done already? Yes, it has. It adds a whole new meaning to the word 'steering' by adding an element of undeniable unfair competitive advantage into the mix. An element anyone should be able to see.

We are already expected to get approval from our competitors to do work on our customer's cars, (a fallacy at best) but this one would require our competitors to inspect our customer's car before we are allowed to work on it. Of course, while it's there getting inspected....why not just let them do the work too.....see where this goes and why it's a major unfair competitive advantage that should violate several laws?

Of course, if you enjoy steering, and benefit from it, you'll like this possible new twist.

For now, ask if ALL shops must do this, or just SOME shops. lol lol See what their answer is.

I know this is where my boss will draw the LINE. He's been threatning to get out of AG anyway, this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Think about the mobile jobs, what now we have to drive to insureds, take the picture, drive back to shop and upload photos to ins co/tpa, then drive back to insureds next day to do install, because you're not ordering the part (non stock) until the job is secured as the Italians say "fuget about it"!!

So, do we then charge the insured for the extra time, material and gas, or TRY to get reimbursed from the Insurance Co,/ TPA, which isn't going to happen, or just as Mark1 said, eat the cost,. At what point do they stop taking more profit from our end?

Most people have a digital camera, or can get a disposable one. I think it should be the resposibility of the person making the claim. They can't get service dispatched until they prove there is a legitimate claim.

They could give the customer a story about how this keeps everyones rates down.

Sounds like a pain in the butt for shop owners. Sounds like a big obstacle for the fly by night slop & droppers.
I kinda like the idea. We go into the wringer now to do insurance work. Another obstacle in the way of the not so up & up AGR people may be a good thing.

Sglass, now there is something I did not think about.

WHAT? Are they going to force the shops to be adjusters for them?? And just for good messure they won't pay us for it,, instead they'll find a way to charge us for doing their work. I need to get out of glass and get into INSURANCE!!!!

It's called COST shifting! From your pockect book to thiers....Tell them to come take thier own DANG pictures with thier on DANG employee!

Mark1-

If my memory serves me, Windshield of America had claims adjusters for Safeco? in thier shops.

Some software providers have already built in the function to "attach" files or pics to invoices. Did they know something we didn't.

I'd have to go back into my files to see who exactly was doing it, and when, but I do remember that it was collision, and that shops that weren't "members" quickly brought the issues up with their states legal beagles over Commercial Code, Unfair Claims, and Deceptive Claims issues.

The jist of it was, that only certain shops that happened to be 'larger' providers seemed to be the ones that were 'approved' to pre-inspect the car. Shops immediately began documenting what was going on, who was approved and wasn't, and some went and became liscensed adjusters just to show that bias was in place as far as the selected shops. (If not a shop with a liscensed adjuster there, then who?) There was also a question, by definition per state laws, if the 'inspector' was acting as an unliscensed insurance agent.

As far as this string started, about just pictures, I believe that if the shop chooses to do things for free, so be it. That does not make it an accepted market practice, especially if the major player doing it has already filed bankruptcy once.

Now, the really fun part is, seeing how this whole practice is probably to scare shops out of performing work before the network has a chance to steer or steal the customer: If you have the digital camera anyway, take the pic right before you pull the glass, perform the work, then if (and ONLY if) somebody yells foul and accuses or charges you with fraud for replacing parts that weren't broken....produce the pic (right after they create a tort for you over malicious prosecution), otherwise just file it.

And, if you are going to charge them for the service of taking pictures, well, you'd probably better actually take the picture.

Win, win, fun, fun, either way.

As always, I'm no lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Finally, a question: Does anyone really think insurers want pictures? (Ok 2 questions) Is it more likely that shops are getting around the networks, and someone is whining to the insurers because their quantity is down and without the quantity, they're hurting financially for some reason? (Ok 3 questions) Who said I was long winded?

No
Yes
Yes

I also do not see this as a "terrible" event. As Mark1 pointed out, this is commonplace in collision.

I would only hope that this particular insurer would equally embrace the digital images of corrosion and rust work removal, decal removal & replacement, and images of useless moldings.... and remit accordingly.

If an insurer accepts and embraces technology in this manner, there is little need for a third party administrator or network mucking up the relationship between a legitimate provider of glass services and the consumer.

You do not have to do it, the law they listed just states you need to try to repair rather than replace. As long as you are doing this you are complying by helping to reduce costs. If they want you to do an appraisal then they need to pay you for it. What if the next letter you get says you now need to wash and wax the car before you take the pictures so they come out better, are you going to do it? By the way Safety came to our shop and Paul Segota flat out said he will never put a shop on their list until you consistently reach their desired repair ratio. Now if you were on that list you may want to comply to stay on it.

AS SOME HAVE REPLIED IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN COLLISION CLAIMS, THERE ALWAYS IS AN ADJUSTER AVAILABLE FOR BODY SHOPS AND THE CLAIM IS APPROVED IN A TIMELY MATTER. ONCE THE CLAIM IS APPROVED BY THE ADJUSTER AND THE AUTO IS COMPLETE THE BODY SHOP IS HANDED A CHECK FROM THE ADJUSTER AND THE DEDUCTABLE IS PAYED BY THE CUSTOMER BEFORE THE CAR LEAVES THE SHOP. THEY DONT WAIT 30,45,60 OR 90 DAYS FOR THERE MONEY.

Way back in the 70's or 80's ( I'm old) the insurance companies required a polaroid photo of the broken glass
attached to the claim to reduce fraud.

Only problem was that a single crack never showed up well in the photo, HOWEVER.......

If you took a paper clip, straightened it out, and stuck it under the molding against the windshield, you had the best photo of a crack that you could imagine !

Reminds me of the TPA's that MUST HAVE ONLY THE POLICYHOLDER on the phone to process a claim. If I was dishonest it would be very easy to have anyone in my shop impersonate that policyholder and the TPA csr would never be the wiser. Funny thing is, some of the TPA's own sister employees have done this in the past just to get claims filed.

Thing is, where there is a will there is a way and fraud will always happen sadly.

I'm wondering if insurance work is worth all of this crap. Is it not just better to do cash work. From what I've seen theres a minimal amount of differance in profit.

We see no problem with this from Safety as when you use the aftermarket parts (nags) they are about the only company that takes no discount off of NAGS and they pay per nags hrs if they keep that and want to get the cheapest part for them that is fine with us how many domestic dealers car glass not many that I know of in most cases they will go with the avalible part! We feel the same way with the pictures small investment for 0 % off Fine with us!!!! As far as Paul Segota goes he has always been a straight shooter when ever we dealt with him!!!!!

Rick...this is the just the start with /Safety...you are a new poster/reader....use the search feature. Why do I need to incur an extra expense to help vehicle owner's get their doorglass repaired? They can pay me and send in their bill, this is the wave of the near future.

this is so stupid because the shops that cheat will continue to find a way to cheat and the honest shops will have to do all these stupid changes for nothing it is a pain in the glass to take pictures download send as the web site you need a map to find the insurance co make it so a small guy just doesnt have a chance anymore and the big guys dont always do a great job or honest job either as the owners probably dont set windshields themselves and have no idea what their employees do so i am sure this will go the way of the wind after they have made everyone angry and spent money on cameras computers etc [:|][:-?][:-?]

It seems to me there was another insurance co. in the New England area that required the insured to provide pictures or they would not pay the claim. I had one customer who provided the pictures twice because they kept losing them.This was a few years ago. Maybe it was Safety.But requiring the glass shop to is a bit out there.

we are billing $5.00 PER PICTURE

We wre billing $5.00 per picture

Five dollars a picture is what we are billing them

I remember back in the 80's when we had to photograph cars for liberty & then there came a time when the insured needed a new windshield only because it was badly pitted & the INS. CO. told the insured that the window had to be broken before it could be replaced & the long of the short is the insured sued the INS.CO.(& WON) because they were involved in an accident. They could'nt see out of the badly pitted windshield. So I'm thinking that if we start being the judge for them they might be out of the "picture" for any kind of liability. Now on the other hand they would also be required to supply the industry with the means to photograph these cars per thier request, & this I know is the law.

I take a digital picture of every car that i work on, just for the fact that customers blame glass shops for everything... You can get a simple digital camera for $30 , Every nextel phone i have, has a digital cam in it.

We received the letter on October 6 and coincidentally, a Safety insured came into our shop on the 13th!!! We made sure that we did the job on the 14th to avoid having to do these pictures!! We also received a letter from the MGDA stating that they were trying to get Safety to pay for all of this! Of course, we heard nothing after that!