http://www.glassbytes.com/2015/05/safelite-calls-minnesota-commerce-commissioners-response-a-red-herring/

I almost puked while reading this rotten can of worms. THIS almost UNBELIEVABLE but yet coming from an entity trying to hang on to every tid bit they can well this is PATHETIC.

If the MN Commerce dept has any gonads at, all this will be a slaughter fest. Once this can of worms is opened up, this should be like domino's falling down.

THE AVALANCHE IS COMING. If the commerce dept drops the ball now, they will open the door for them to be sued by shops for not doing their job. BUT I FIRMLY BELIEVE the Mn Dept of Commerce are not only going to prevail, but this is just the beginning of an end. Belron, your days are numbered, you will be held responsible. Spin twist all ou want the day is coming!

Just maybe MN shops should contact the Dept of Commerce and start filing a few complaints, Voice their opinions and support this, It may just be a call to action for the Industry.

Anyone want to make some good changes for the industry? No better time than right NOW!
WAKE UP AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE.......

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black....free speech, commercial or not, has limits. Remember, you can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater if there isn't a fire. That would be deceptive and may cause harm.

Aren't TPA's scripted to introduce "red herrings" into the claims settlement process when the customer chooses a non-network shop?

If insurance companies essentially select a service provider to administer their claims, then they become liable for all the work performed by that service provider and the work performed by any affiliated (network)shops because their policyholders are directed (steered) to them during the claims settlement process.

If consumers are truly free to choose the service provider, why would an insurance company expose itself to unnecessary liability by selecting a service provider as a TPA? A better question is why would an insurance company regulator permit an insurance company to unnecessarily expose itself to such liability?

It appears the MN Department of Commerce is on the right track. It looks like they have enough ammo for now and may have their hands full. They probably don't need the added distraction of auto glass shops or insurance customers overloading them with more complaints at this point. What shops may want to do is continue to document customer complaints and violations to the statute?

WRONG! So far, only one insurer has been affected. There can never be enough "ammo". All the other insurers need to be brought onto the carpet and if complaints are not made loud and clear, it will not happen.

Safelite and its henchmen act as if the world rotates around them. Not the case. The other auto insurers that use deceptive scripting need to be admonished.

Insurance company regulators have a duty to make sure deception is not a part of the claims settlement process!

JB, In Safelites documents they mention that more of their insurers are being investigated for administrative action, which is probably what prompted them to go on the offensive. We don't know if that is true or not, however if the Commerce department prevails and Safelite is guilty of these violations, then they are guilty on behalf of virtually every insurer they adjust claims for. I would expect the Commerce department may be putting the other investigations on hold until this case is resolved. Once that happens and should they prevail, Katy bar the door...

My point is that Safelite should be on the outside looking in. After all, the auto insurer is ultimately responsible for the conduct of its TPA. Safelite volunteered its services but the auto insurers should have known better because the business model is so obviously flawed.

More complaints can only emphasize the problem. It is not like Mr. Rothman will have to investigate all of them all by himself.

Consumer complaints are evidence which documents and thereby supports Mr. Rothman's assertion that AAA/SGC's practices violate the letter and spirit of the consumer protection statutes which legally regulate the administration of claims in MN. Solid argument.
SGC feeds itself all the insurance work and about 97% of the time things work out okay for the consumer...as far as the consumer can tell anyway. A friendly guy shows up on time in a nice vehicle and does the job. Good enough as far as the typical consumer is concerned. They don't know the dark side of the transaction. They are blissfully ignorant of the fact that they just unwittingly participated in a rigged, illegal transaction orcheastrated by their insurance company and executed by SGC.
It's a beautiful scheme for SGC. But it is what it is...a sheme. Thier lawyers will take it to the Supreme Court to keep it going. Nobody in their right mind would voluntarily give up such a lucrative deal...unless they had a sudden bout of conscience. And that's not likely.
The MN AG has laid it out quite artfully. The is the best chance to level things up I've seen in 20 years as a participant of this industry. There have been many well-intentioned yet fatally flawed attempts. This one, it seems, may have thicker legs. Time will tell. One can only hope...and get involved.
I wonder how things are in CT now?