http://www.ncoil.org/HomePage/2010/06282010BelronCommentLetter.pdf

Another classic example of providing only the information from one side of the issues, ignoring/omitting all conflicting information from the other side.

Similar to telling consumers only what you want them to hear.

Of course, some would opine that this was the author's job.

LOL

At least it was well written. And to a novice of the glass industry, I could see someone actually buying into it. Unfortunately, it only tells one side. I do love the argument between Safelite and Triumph, although I wonder why they didn't add how Belron "bought" their main competitior. Why was that left out?

true that puzzled

Interesting reading. One would think Belron was the only entity in the world that has the consumers best interest in mind.

I noted that they have admitted in writing to a US Senator that they are not only in the auto glass repair and replacement business but that they also administer the claims process for most of their consumers. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is! Do any other auto glass claims administrators also repair and/or replace auto glass? Just asking? If a consumer chooses a non-network shop/affiliate, what can the third party administrator tell the consumer that is not already in their policy? How do they know the non-network shop won't do a better job at a better price?

It sounds like the insurance companies have saved a lot of money by utilizing third party administrators. How much of that savings actually makes it to the policyholder?

it is well written because it is true.
it is not a conflict of interest when the consumer has a choice to go where ever they want.


as said in the letter if they did anything and i mean anything wrong it would have come out in the millions of dollars spent by diamond to go after safelite. THEY FOUND NOTHING!!!
the case was settled long before belron purchased diamond.
you all can argue the TPA all you want but its not going away in fact they have only grown in the last 10 years.
fighting them is like fighting the sun rise.

SETTLE being the key word.they did out out of court..

http://www.ncoil.org/Docs/SummerMeeting/AutoBodySteeringModel.pdf

suggested revisions?

IGA Mikey chimed in too. Only to be undermined by his State Representatives sitting on the NCOIL committee considering the anti-steering model bill.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=206495&type=newswires

Welcome to the here and now.

Dam it im just a country tech but we are constituents too and there needn't be complaints from insureds when those lower rates are subsidized by fellow constituents and , aw phooey, at least mikey got honorable mention. if it pleases you reality, are you under the impression that any effort to protect a mechanics wage or the safety of motorists is a complete waste of time ?

Mr. Ohm,

Am I “under the impression that ANY effort to protect a mechanics wage or the safety of motorists is a complete waste of time?” The short answer is “no”. HOWEVER, attempting to effectuate such change(s) through entities like NCOIL, or any other insurer influenced organization or regulatory body would not only be a waste of time, money and resources, but also down right stupid. In other words, “honorable mention” ain’t worth spit.

Of course, this is just my opinion...backed up by years of history that apparently many hereon are predisposed to ignore.

Welcome to the reality of the here and now.

And Mr. E,

I found this quote to be interesting:

“Unnecessary restrictions on information insurers can provide to insureds is also a commercial free speech concern, said PCI Senior Director of Claims Robert Passmore.”

There was no need for Mr. Passmore to offer this observation...other than, in my opinion, to be blatantly threatening. But heck, why not? This year alone, insurers have already scored HUGE victories off industry misfires in both California and Arizona. Why not build on this success with a “model law” that was once again instigated by like-minded fools?

It truly is the reality of the here and now.

Of course this is just one man's opinion.

How is "guaranteed pricing" equal to "free market". If I were a congressman in the know, I'd say those two principals are opposite and don't live on the same planet.

That's like saying price setting and letting the market decide upon a fair price mean the same thing.

Or, going deeper, Communism is the same as Capitalism. Doesn't make sense.

Does that bother anyone else?

Reality,

I do not believe that anyone is challenging the right of insurers to "educate" their policyholders. The issue at hand is that it is being done by third parties that have a vested financial interest: the coercion and the intimidation that is taking place is well beyond educating the policyholder. We all know that. In addition, this Belron representative says that the process promotes competition. In what sense does fixed pricing, take it or leave it, one size fits all promote competition?
Also they have extensive information on their competition...knowing when appointments are set, how much we are charging, etc. The challenge to steering in NYS was based in the collision industry. Everyone knows that the steering occurring in auto glass is more blatant. Legislators need to realize that this man is simply defending a financial empire. And as insurers are beginning to realize what is going on, this matter may take care of itself.
Regarding his ludicrous statement on customers being blindsided...are they not being blindsided by the guaranteed average invoice where the work order/invoice says a certain amount and they (Belron) are reimbursed for a different amount? At least when I take my short pays to court I am winning. In addition, one Belron client is paying me directly for my short pays - no court action and I have collected thousands directly. What does that say about the process?

Now let's see. On one hand we have an entity trying to convince prospective customers to make claims against their insurance policies in order to pay for their service/s. And, on the other hand we have an entity administering those very same claims against the customers insurance policy. Only, low and behold, it is the same entity! How is this not a conflict of interest?

When I purchase my auto insurance, I am concerned about the coverage I get for my premium dollar and about how I will be treated if I have to make a claim. If I do have to make a claim, I know going in that the claims process is biased, since the TPA and adjuster will be paid by the Insurer. I do not, however, expect the TPA to brow beat me into choosing a different shop than the one I have chosen!

And NCOIL furthers the discussion to the "next" meeting. LOL

How much are those admission fees?

Anybody track down to see who's ultimately paying for these "insurance legislators" to attend?

LOL

Talk about a tilted playing field.....

But, it's always nice to know what the "dark side" is up to, albeit irrelevant at this point, because such "model" legislation would have to be introduced at each state legislature anyway.

And as pointed out, look what disasters have occured there of late?

Mabey we should consider legislating ourselves for a change? Something simple, such as simple contract language, perhaps, possibly relating to "Who's the Customer?".....

JMHNLO

Well said, probably the best reply to this corrupt monopoly that i have heard yet. Unfortunatly it is to deaf ears as our Congressmen & Senators have not only little to no real job experience and almost no business either. I.E. having to run a business much less make a profit. Or are they? The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
P.S. Who ownes Mitchell/NAGS ?

How can TPA'S be competing in the open market against independent shops?? Are all our lawmakers deaf,dumb,blind & stupid !!!

In addition to the general public, legislators need to be educated as well. They still believe that one windshield replacement on an average of 5 - 7 years will justify an increase in premiums. In addition, I don't see anywhere in the letter that he mentions guaranteed average invoice. How many legislators do you think know about that scheme? Is that protecting the consumers? How well do you think it would be received? Do you think TPAs were intended to play a role in some sort of reinsurance business? And isn't the policyholder entitled to the difference between the invoice price and the amount reimbursed by the insurer? These are questions that I have. Maybe the IGA can present these questions to the committee members prior to the November meeting. The letter to which this post refers will be an awesome propaganda tool. My copy is now highlighted and I know exactly where I am taking it. I hope that you will all do the same.

Put Up or Shut Up Belron - produce the taped calls. It is that easy.

I do have one question, if Safelite has contracted with some insurance companies for a guaranteed average invoice price (repair or replace), why aren't the independant's offered the same? Seems like we should also be able to competitively compete in a free market system.

Huh? What are you asking?

Although Tri-County's post was pulled, this response should not only convey the gist of his question, but also hopefully enlighten those of a similar (and foolish) mindset. Then again, maybe not. Trough feeders are strange people.

Guaranteed AVERAGE invoice does not necessarily mean that the insurer pays one price for all jobs. Instead, it simply means that for the privilege of having all claims referred to or through it, the TPA “guarantees” that after a stated period (say a year), the average cost for all claims during that period will not exceed a certain amount. If that guaranteed amount is exceeded, the TPA must pay the insurer the difference. Hence, the guarantee…

Don’t believe me? See:

http://www.princetonautobody.com/Docs/PDF/Rosenfeld.pdf

Paragraph 13 specifically; although the entire document should prove enlightening.


Now if this is accurate TC, do you still want the same “opportunity”?

we try to materialize liability but manufacture is more accurate, the numbers create strength to a point, its not memorex, it's life

Reality,

I would "guarantee" that both parties make out under the terms of this arrangement, especially if the repair to replacement ratio is high.

There are no independents (sometimes referred to as independants) large enough to sell RE-INSURANCE.

Aside from the logistical and expense issues involved with administering such an undertaking (“guaranteed average invoice” offering), TC’s unfortunate response is another clear example of why the insurance trough is disappearing and what remains is unattractive.

In other words, rather that explore options other than continued servitude while marching toward the ever approaching abyss, we have many hereon who would like the opportunity to quicken the pace. For the life of me, I don’t know why insurers wouldn’t accept TC’s offer.

We really are our own worst enemy. How sad.

Welcome to the here and now

TC-

I like your introduction of the clue report into the discussion. Just what claim amount actually shows up on the clue report? Is not the clue report used to underwrite premiums? Now that would be worth investigating. A customer thinks they are getting a windshield repair done for $ x.xx. But what figure is showing up on the clue report?

TC,

Where you are concerned, I stand corrected.

As for the question regarding CLUE, well these sites and posts tell the story better than I. Suffice to say however, as TC relates, trough feeders insistent upon interjecting themselves into the insurance contract have an exposure...one that I bet all those rocket scientist attorneys who sell their snake oil to uneducated fools fail to mention.

http://www.acrglass.com/clue.htm

http://www.preventcracksblog.com/blog/_archives/2006/10/10/2663057.html

http://www.auto-insurance-resources.org/Avoid_Auto_Insurance_Premium_Increase.html


http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/992231/


And there are many more. After digesting this information, raise your hand if you still think handling insurance claims for your customers is a good idea.

Welcome to the here and now.

Mabey I'm just missing it in this discussion, but I think there's a glaring issue of conflict that everyone else may be missing here.

Quoted from the Belron letter, by Brian M. DiMasi, Senior Corporate Counsel:

"Simply put the 'independent' repair facilities that choose not to be a part of a network want the ability to charge MORE THAN the agreed upon pricing between insurers and network providers."

Yet, in the proposed changes that Belron submitted, they wanted the following language STRUCK:

"An insurer authorized to do business shall not pay a non-preferred facility selected by an insured or claimant less to complete a repair than the insurer would have paid a preferred repair facility for the same work."

So, if, simply put, (lol) all independents want to charge MORE than the agreed pricing, why are they attempting to strike language that forbids them to PAY LESS to the NON-network shop than to the NETWORK shop?

I just can't wait to hear the answers to this one.

LOL and JMHNLO

ha
ha
ha