Could this be a model for all insurance departments across the USA?
Perhaps they opened Pandora's box with all their free speech dribble?
What is the 800 pound gorilla in the room? Unlicensed claims adjusting? Oh My!
Don't most states have laws against this?
Anyone want to bet a c-note they will loose their Supreme court challenge as well?

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas (Connecticut) anymore.
http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/04242015MinnesotaRespondstoSafelite.pdf

I asked if free speech covers deceptive statements. The obvious answer is NO!!!!!! Again, thank you Minnesota. Now it's time for State Farm, other insurers, and TPAs to stop telling our customers they will owe a balance if they use us. They know it's not true.

And if TPAs want to adjust claims they better play by the rules, starting with being licensed.

What happens when they get a license and still short pay you?
Does that license make you feel better?

License or not they cannot make misleading statements. If they continue to short pay, shops can still collect through the administrative process.

Not sure what you mean by "feel better"?

So what is to be gained, we have the administrative process now.
What punishment exists for unscrupulous licensed claims adjusters?
You've heard of "feel good" legislation, where the result is the
feeling something has been done, when in reality they have legitimized
the activity.

You don't get it. Minnesota is spanking Safelite for breaking the law. How easy is it going to be for them to licence all their CSR's? Not very. And you don't think Minnesota will be watching closely to see if Safelite stops it's deceptive tactics? Safelite has painted itself into a corner and opened a can or worms that they'll wish they hadn't. Come to think of it, that does make me feel better. Thanks again Minnesota.

Three cheers for Minnesota! AAA is the entity that was spanked...the other notorious TPA was essentially put in its rightful place. That is on the outside looking in.

TPA's have adopted a scheme that, on the surface, seems benign. However, the GAI (guaranteed average Invoice) scheme is far from benign.

Contracts between auto insurers and their TPA’s must be subject to review by the Dept. of Insurance. If not, why not? By using the GAI scheme, auto insurers are permitted to control prices paid to auto glass repair facilities rather than negotiate reasonable prices. The auto insurers abuse their power when they treat all auto glass claims exactly the same as under the GAI scheme when some claims are repairs to the damaged piece of glass and others involve replacing the glass.

The insurers also abuse their position by threatening auto glass repair facilities to fall in line and accept the offered price or else they will make every effort to boycott their services. This is proven by the scripts the TPA’s are required to follow during the claim settlement process as well as in actual practice. Those scripts must also be subject to review by State Dept. of Insurance. If not, why not?

Our insurance code emphatically states that policyholders may freely choose the glass repair facility which services their vehicles. However, that freedom of choice is being undermined during the claims settlement process when the TPA deceptively suggests that something is wrong with the chosen shop and then deceptively threatens the policyholder with potential out of pocket costs if they remain with their chosen glass repair facility all the while knowing that the insurance policy is not a “preferred provider” type of policy and that nothing in the policy requires the use of a so called “preferred provider”. Furthermore, the auto insurer has promised in good faith, to pay reasonable prices to restore the insured auto in the event of a loss.

Auto insurers may set the prices of their insurance policies because that is the “business of insurance” but, they may not dictate to the auto glass industry what prices they will pay for services provided to their policyholders. Agreements, or the lack thereof, between service providers and auto insurers are outside the business of insurance but relationships between the two are not, especially when insurers abuse their power and resort to threats, coercion, innuendo, deception and intimidation.

The GAI scheme itself is, not only corrupt, but also anti-competitive in nature. Service providers are being victimized and their ability to compete on a pro-competitive playing field is being removed. First of all, auto insurers and their TPA’s are not service providers. So, how is it possible for an insurer to contract a TPA based on the GAI scheme?

Under this scheme, the TPA must agree to enforce prices set by the auto insurance company (NOT NEGOTIATED) even if they are not reasonable prices and follow aggressive and caddish scripts when dealing with the valid claims of policyholders. If the TPA fails to keep the settled claim invoices to the insurer at or below the GAI agreed upon, the TPA is penalized. Thus, under the GAI scheme the TPA has a vested interest in depressing prices in order to avoid penalties and has a conflict of interest when dealing with service providers. Service providers are coerced into joining TPA networks in order to keep the insurer and its TPA from boycotting their repair facilities and to keep them from steering or attempting to steer their policyholders away in violation of public policy set in 1963 when the 1963 Consent Decree was signed by over 200 auto insurers and their associations in order to avoid prosecution for antitrust violations and more recently when other state laws guaranteeing the policyholders right to choose were passed and signed into law. As other TPA’s are forced to adopt the GAI model in order to compete with other TPA’s, the screws are tightened and prices are depressed even more. The effect is less competition in the auto glass service industry in the form of fewer service providers and by removal of the bidding process.

Having been employed for twenty years as of next month by a company involved in the auto glass repair industry , I can honestly testify to the fact that auto insurers have successfully kept windshield repair prices at or below 1995 rates and have done so with the use of force and threats to boycott. The GAI model is most egregious when the TPA is financially affiliated with a glass manufacturer as well as multiple service providers. In that case, the TPA is doubly conflicted in that it has the power to negotiate with the insurer by virtue of its vertically financially affiliated companies a favorable GAI for itself and then enforce depressed pricing on its competition. It is also able to manipulate the numbers to make sure invoices submitted to the auto insurer favor financially affiliated service providers at the expense of competitor service providers!

Coincidentally, the Minnesota Commerce Commissioner has recently responded forcefully to a complaint filed by a notorious TPA transacting business there. What has been happening in Minnesota has also been happening in every other state in our nation. His response is spot on and should trigger investigations nationwide.
• First, investigate the contracts between auto insurers and their TPA’s. Look for things that stifle competition and might promote conflicts of interest.
• Next, investigate whether claims handling procedures comply with existing state laws and whether the scripts used by TPA’s in their dealings with policyholders and service providers comply with state law. Look for procedures that skirt the requirement to advise policyholders of their right to freely choose a service provider and the use of deception and high handed tactics and violations of claims settlement practices.
• Then investigate agreements between TPA’s and service providers. Look for hidden costs to participate and other evidence of coerced participation.
• Finally, reach out to service providers and policyholders who have been through the claims process within the last 12-18 months. There should be recordings of each transaction on file. Look for evidence of intimidation, coercion, deception and improper claims settlement practices.
• Have each auto insurer explain how they determine what is reasonable pricing in any given market.
• Have them explain how it is reasonable to pay 2015 windshield repair claims at 1995 rates or even less.
• Have them explain how it is fair and reasonable to only pay for one rock chip repair and $0 for additional repairs when statistically over 30% of the time claims involve two or more rock chips. $0 payment for additional work? In what market is that not considered slave labor?

ALL TPAs are equal, correct Davey? They all use similar verbiage.

Davey, go on Safelite's website and get a quote for a chip repair. It'll be two to three times what they reimburse you. And they'll say the payment represents fair & reasonable pricing for your area. What a racket. Then factor in the GAI and you really have a racket going.

Dear Stupid Question,
That really was a stupid question. Go back and read the article. One is more egregious than the others.

Davey, as long as they steer to you they are "good"; if they steer away from you they are bad?
just so i have it clear. Your golden network uses the same "may have to pay more" verbiage as the dirty one with non-member shops. Your knickers are showing.

Dear Stupid Question,

Go back and read the article one more time. Any TPA that uses a GAI model has a conflict of interest. I did not mention any "golden" network nor do I belong to any networks.

If state laws declare that consumers have the right to freely choose the service provider, then even insurance policy language cannot overide the law. The point is that TPA's & auto insurers are violating the law and clearly established public policy when they steer or even attempt to steer.

In my opinion, when an auto insurer uses an auto attendant to redirect glass only claims to a TPA which has declared in open court that service providers not affiliated with them are competitors, then an act of steering has taken place. That same line of thinking goes for auto insurers that print glass only claim numbers that go directly to biased TPA's on their insurance cards.

Insurance companies that use deceptive scripting in obvious attempts to persuade policyholders to not use the repair facility of choice are violating the law especially when the script reader represents financially affiliated competitors of the chosen repair facility.

My knickers are clean and fully covered. Are yours?

Why the distinction between the egregious network and the golden network? Is the distinction based on the number of times a day they offend? They appear equally egregious.

Daveys points are valid to the extent that other TPA's don't steer to themselves, but instead to their "network partners". In this case it appears the commerce department is saying that whatever TPA is using the language that Safelite is using, they would also be in violation. To my knowledge Lynx, Quest and others are using similar language and should probably take a hard look at what is going on in Minnesota. In addition, Lynx, Quest and others are not licensed, and therefore are in violation of that as well.
"The times they are a changin".

Just saw they lost their Supreme court review as well.
Did anyone bet me that c-note?