Anyone notice the new? SGC Authorization to Pay wording on recent faxes? Maybe I missed it but when did they start saying...

"I authorize my insurance, fleet, or leasing company to pay (your shop) directly for this claim."

... does it seem odd that a TPA would have a policyholder sign an Authorization to Pay that states the insurance is to pay the shop directly??

Maybe I missed this and have been hybernating for to long.

It's been there for a long while, CCC.

It's like I keep saying, insurers are contracted to indemnify policyholders against loss.

Insurers do not contract repairs from/with glass shops.

THerefore, the customer must sign off so that the proceeds of the policy go directly to the shop. Otherwise the insurer would have to send payment to the policyholder, ESPECIALLY after having brought in a TPA, AND a pricing agreement with that TPA, into the mix. Some insurers say this clause negates their duties and obligations of notification to the insured about payments made under the policy. Not so.

This makes the insurers squawking about assignment of proceeds by shops not in networks about as amusing as a drug dealer calling the cops when his drugs are stolen. Pot calling the kettle black type of situation.

Funny--I get a check from the TPA not the insurance company? hhmmmmm
Am I missing something here?!?!?!

My thought exactly Glasswoman. If it says right on the fax that the insurance is to pay the SHOP directly why do I continue to get a check from the TPA? I know why, but it makes no sense. I think it adds more weight to those non-network shops and their ability to collect direct from the insurance company.

THe language isn't there for you. It's there to sidestep the duty to pay the policyholder directly.

THey choose the option in the policy to pay monies for the repairs. Their contract is to pay the policyholder, NOT THE SHOP. That's why I keep saying insurers don't owe shops ONE THIN DIME, in that they are NOT contracting the repairs, by choosing the option under the policy to REPAIR THE CAR, but that's another topic.

The policyholder signs the "pay the shop directly" clause so the insurer has it in writing that the policyholder agreed to this, and not send the monies directly to the policyholder as the policy says: indemnify the policyholder against loss".

The fact that the insurer hires a TPA to pay the shop, so they don't have to write 10 zillion checks, is beside the point of the clause, and within the insurers rights.

I understand what you are saying, but it won't apply. You are trying to apply a contractural issue between the insurer and the shop regarding the payment, but it does not exist. THe contract is between the policyholder and the insurer. You cannot claim harm by that clause, because you aren't party to the contract; not the insurance contract, nor did a contract of repairs exist between you and the insurer.

JMHNLO
(This is my new abbreviation for "Just My Honest Non Legal Opinion")