Substitute House Bill No. 5072

Public Act No. 13-67

AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMOTIVE GLASS WORK.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2014) (a) No automobile physical damage appraiser shall require that automotive glass work, as defined in section 20-330 of the general statutes, should or should not be performed in or by a specified facility or glass shop.

(b) No insurance company doing business in this state or third-party claims administrator, agent or adjuster for such company shall (1) require any insured to use a specific person for the provision of automotive glass work, or (2) state that choosing a facility other than a glass shop participating in an automotive glass work program established by such company will result in delays in or a lack of guarantee for the automotive glass work.

(c) (1) If there is any communication between a glass claims representative for an insurance company doing business in this state or a third-party claims administrator for such company and an insured regarding automotive glass work or automobile glass products, in the initial contact with the insured, such representative or claims administrator shall state or disclose to the insured a statement substantially similar to the following: "You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know. ".

(2) No glass claims representative for an insurance company doing business in this state or a third-party claims administrator for such company shall provide an insured with the name of, schedule an appointment for an insured with or direct an insured to, a licensed glass shop that is owned by (A) such company, (B) such claims administrator, or (C) the same parent company as such insurance company or claims administrator, unless such representative or claims administrator provides the insured with the name of at least one additional licensed glass shop in the area where the automotive glass work is to be performed.

Approved June 3, 2013

Ok, so the law requires that the TPA provide the name of one other glass shop. Then the CSR continues with the script. The other glass shop does not have a national warranty or they may not accept the insurance companies price. Really no difference from the insured making the FNOL with a shop already selected. The TPA distracts that decision by reading the script. I don't see any significant difference here. As long as there are TPAs, you will not stop steering.

So what if all the TPA's were suddenly gone? Do you think that would end steering?
Insurance company claim divisions would try to do the same thing the TPA's are doing now.

please read c1

What is the penalty if they don't follow the rules?

Just like Mike said, "Please tell us if you have a preference, but we do have a list of preferred providers that will warranty their work until your vehicle falls off the face of the earth so you probably want us to go ahead and dispatch one of our preferred providers don't you?".....Blah, Blah, Blah

Who is going to enforce the rules?

is this why they keep on aquiring different companies. here in s az they have 3-4 different organiations they operate under. how does this new law prevent them from listing or mentioning their other compnay names. just a thought.

please read the bill

Sad to say it but Mike is right. I live in a state that makes it illegal to steer, but it happens more and more all the time. Local agents do it. Lynx does it. Safelite does it. If there's no enforcement steering will continue. Ever speed on a back road cause you know you won't get caught? Congrats on your new statute, I hope it helps.

So what: What if garbage trucks could fly??
Guess what, they never will fly and TPA's will not SUDDENLY be gone.
At least someone is trying to get something done.
Now that one state has done something, Glass Shop Owners in other states should try to do the same thing. One step at a time, do nothing, get nothing, look at the bright side. If you don't do anything, the industry will continue to slide into the abyss. Then the big "B" wins by a KO, and everyone else LOSES.
Maybe, just maybe, the rest of the insurance companies will see how Travelers uses on line claims management. Then TPA's will begin to shrink rather then expand, you all win. If you agree to their price your in, if not pound salt. At least you would have a fair shot at ALL of the work, not just the spill over portion the TPA's can't steal or whatever you get by accident. Then good old fashioned marketing, internet advertising and NAME RECOGNITION would be the name of the game. In addition with many players in the game, rather than 1 GIANT and a few struggling bit players, it will be a good thing for the consumers, both the car owners and insurance companies.
Ooops...

It seems to me most of you think doing nothing is the way to go. I don't think you realize how hard is to get a bill passed. so far know one has gotten the perfect bill but @ least some are moving in the right direction. here in south Carolina we didn't get what we wanted but we do have some positive aspects in our law now we have to start again to fight for some amendments to our law & ct & ma have things in their bills that can help our argument and vise-versa.so congrats to all that are trying and fight on.

I hope that law helps. As I posted a couple of months ago, Third Party Administrators are illegal in Montana, but they operate here anyway. It all comes down to enforcement.

glass express,

You are correct in that it does not hurt to make the effort. But steering will never be stopped. The insurance lobby is way too powerful. And do not forget that independent glass shops are only aware of a small percentage of the overall claims that are actually steered. The entire process, from start to finish, is rigged in favor of the insurance companies/TPAs. It all starts with the FS20 and reporting the claim. Upon experiencing a loss, the reaction of most car owners is to reach into the glove compartment for the FS20 to make the call to see if they have coverage. The FNOL is the beginning of the end of the claim, even when a consumer has a glass shop already in mind. That 800 number on the back of the FS20 takes you right into the call center where the consumer is so called "educated." Also, the insurance companies have taken more and more responsibility from the agents in this regard to control where the claims end up. In the case of at least one insurer, the agents are actually told that they can lose their franchise. And if you ever get that near perfect legislation, what are the penalties for violating the law? A slap on the wrist? The only way that you will ever break this control is if you can prove that consumers are being harmed in the process. This is the only thing that matters to those legislators that you are counting on to level the playing field.

starting 01/01/14 conn. will be the only state that a TPA must
ask if you have choice ! FROM A REAL PERSON NOT A TAPE RECORDING IN THE BEGINING OF CALL !

Wrong.

OB is correct...

hmmm .... really ???

ob1 you are not correct in south Carolina the first thing the csr is suppose to ask is do you have a shop of choice, if you say yes it's suppose to stop there guess what it doesn't they then say that's fine but let us tell you the advantages of using the company your insurance company uses and they just go on and on and on until you give in. this is not how are law was to work that went into effect 1/01/2012 so needless to say here in south Carolina we have more work to do. congrats again to ct. and any other state that's willing to fight for their own survival.

While the denial of the temp *****ction was a loss for Safelite (DiMassi), the battle is far from over. This case will be in the courts for years. The Defendants (CT Ins. Czar and AG) will probably be dead and buried when this is finally settled.
CT is a moral victory, to be sure. A practical one? Only time will tell.

but the law goes into effect until an appeal is won or not.

Safelite has, in their lawsuit, laid it all on the line. The Plaintiffs were Safelite Solutions, LLC and Safelite Group, Inc, (collectively Safelite). Why wasn't it only Safelite Solutions, LLC which represented the TPA arm of Safelite Group, Inc.?

The answer is because, as it is revealed in the lawsuit, it is really the Safelite Autoglass (the fulfillment division) that would possibly be harmed by a possible reduction of referrals, as well as the the manufacturing division because there may be less demand for Safelite windshields.

Notice, not one insurance company licensed in CT was party to the lawsuit. I wonder why.

It is obvious that the state of CT wants their anti-steering laws enforced. Now, since as JayBob notes, the CT Ins Czar and AG have been sued by Safelite, maybe they will be more proactive in enforcing the laws instead of enforcing the law with a blind eye as in the past.

Very good point, JB. Blind-eye enforcement by the state has been an issue in past legislative successes. It's not a priority expenditure at the underfunded agencies charged with the enforcement. Consumers aren't squawking about it so its not a priority...unless you sue the very people charged with that enforcement! That may just raise it up on the enforcement priority list, huh? CT, then, makes sense as a place for SL to pick this fight in the seemingly all-in fashion with which they have. Relatively, there's not a lot of revenue at stake in CT.

glass express, The judge made the decision quickly to give Safelite time to appeal before the law goes into effect. So as it stands now, yes the law is set to go into effect as of January 1. But Safelite's attorneys are asking the Second Circuit Court to overturn the judge's decision ASAP.

Connecticut Glass installers/shops are licensed by the Department of Consumer Protection. If the law is not being followed (which I believe they will) the board meets every month and can call for an investigation..


No one knows what will happen with the new law but we do know it is groundbreaking and a classic David versus Goliath if it goes into effect

Mary Christmas independents across America! If this legislation holds it will set the stage for many State Chapters to forge forward with copy cat bills that can help level the field.

Merry Christmas.
Wake me up when there is any evidence of enforcement. Viewing this as a great victory is difficult at best, hardly a baby step. Between the varied responses listed here there is no consensus over something as simple as whether TPAs should even exist. One must question if the TPA isn't actually a stabilizing force regarding pricing, without the networks some would be paying the insurer for work. The argument could be made there is a player who manufactures, distributes, installs, runs a TPA, that is doing just that. Subsidizing the losses with profits from participants in their program.

Zzzz,
How can that be? Brian DiMassi is on record stating that there is no cost to join Safelites network.

the damage is already done. with years of abuse to the indy and a lot of shops just stop doing auto period , its a shame what we did to our industry

Sitting watching the traffic go by is not doing a thing. Glad you have taken the time and effort to establish some kind of rules in your area. It does help at least in the sense that networks will have to watch how they conduct business. No matter what happens at least you are doing something about it instead of all the whiners here posting the negative all the time.

Merry Christmas everyone!! We had a great year up north where Santa lives!

North Pole , Alaska

Case Developments
December 23, 2013

Safelite Group, Inc. et al v. Jepsen et al

Notice of Appeal

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 51 Order on Motion for Preliminary In_junction by Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Solutions LLC. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0205-3104950. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jensen, Benjamin)

Now, let's hope the appelate court judges have some common sense!

Thanks Rabbit, we hope more States will try and do the same... Lets keep our fingers crossed JB

Indies in CT should:
A. Cancel Safelite af filiate agreements.
B. Compose a form letter to send to all carriers that use Safelite to handle claims demanding an alternate way to handle their claims without having to deal with a direct competitor like Safelite.
C. Search the internet for claims ph numbers for each carrier that uses Safelite. When calling in the claim, do not press the "glass only" extension. Tell the insurance company CSR that you do not want to deal with Safelite because they are your competitor and that you do not want them forwarding any of your business transactions to Safelite either. Go as high up the ladder as necessary.
D. Tell the insurance company that you will be glad to negotiate your prices but not through any "network."