Contact the Rhode Island governor ASAP and suggest that he not sign the legislation recently sent to his desk by a bamboozled senate. The legislation appears to be written by insurance lobbyists and Safelite lobbyists.

Go to Glassbytes to read the article and then click on the link to the actual legislation.

Send a message to the Governor to have him send it back for modifications!

Davey: Would be able to explain your thinking a bit more? Are you a Rhode Island company? Please email jreed@glass.com. Thanks.

I hadn't had time to read the text of the law.

Jenna, I don't know who did the story for AGRR and Glassbytes, but does anyone actually READ THE WHOLE THING besides Davey?

Frankly, I understand the issues with "harvesters", and "trunk slammers" and "car wash" installers and repairers, but really, let's ask ourselves just whom is behind this effort to pass this legislation, and what its purpose really is.

First, if it is shops, then they're missing the paragraph I'll highlight below.

Second, if it is insurers, then flagging "the bad guys" that "are causing all the problems this industry has" and basically "legislating them out of existence" is a slippery slope that I find scary to say the least, and history has proven this time and again, but let's just stick to the basics of the issues and ask ourselves just who is manipulating whom with the paragraph inserted in the bottom of the legislation I'll paste below.

If indeed the legislation is intended to stop unethical practices and acts by unscrupulous folks with an agenda, and promote a health competitive market place by outlawing misleading, deceptive, and downright fraudulent acts, then why is there in place Section 16, which will not only allow, but clearly designate steering to preferred providers as "specific truthful and non-deceptive information regarding the features and benefits available to the insured under the insurance policy" when those preferred provider programs ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THE INSURANCE POLICY????

"However, an insurer authorized to conduct business in the state may provide directly or through other means, including electronic transmissions, specific truthful and non-deceptive information regarding the features and benefits available to the insured under the policy to assist the insured in selecting a licensed motor vehicle glass repair shop or scheduling a licensed motor vehicle glass repair shop to perform motor vehicle glass repair, or enter into any preferred provider agreements and/or participate in direct repair programs or direct repair networks with licensed motor vehicle glass repair shops."

Right up to that point, I really didn't find anything that was terribly wrong with the legislation, albeit that mobile only people that may be able to deal with weather issues without a brick and mortar location would obviously be upset, and possibly rightfully so, but that's not my decision, nor the issue of the reason why this law has a bad spot that I'm bringing up.

I choose not to debate the mobile only vs brick and mortar issue, so let's focus on Section 16, and tell me why, simply, RI is legislating misleading, deceptive, and coercive insurer behaviour as "specific truthful and non-deceptive information regarding the features and benefits available to the insured under the policy to assist the insured in selecting a licensed motor vehicle glass repair shop or scheduling a licensed motor vehicle glass repair shop to perform motor vehicle glass repair" when the insurer is not contracting for the repairs to the car, and the features and benefits of the policy they claim they are truthfully specifying are NOT CONTAINED IN THE INSURANCE POLICY?

Finally, I say, remove from Section 16 that which I highlighted, allow mobile shops to show they can deal with poor weather situations, and license everyone. Why does the Section I highlighted even NEED TO BE IN THERE, unless it's to rally shops behind a cause to not only help insurers get rid of folks going around their networks, but to allow them to steer to their preferred providers even more by legislating their speech as truthful and non deceptive benefits and featurs of the policy when it's not even IN THE POLICY. I can't get past the cliche "the pot calling the kettle black" on this one.

Is that clear enough? I hope so, and truly hope it was helpful. You have my apologies if my tone/typing seemed otherwise.

As always, JMHNLO.

Thank you, Mark1.

In addition to what Mark1 commented on, in Section S-38.5-16-Prohibited Practices. On page 8 lines 8-15. This takes away one very important part of scripting to combat the TPA's "Customer will have to Pay the difference" script. In fact, it may remove the option for a glass shop to bill anything other than what the TPA or insurer says is "fair and reasonable". Were any glass shops in Rhode Island working on this? I wish someone in Rhode Island would comment non-anonymously. Perhaps with a quote on Glassbytes?
Ok, I get the licensing angle, but can anyone tell me how this will help RI shops more than what they have now? Sounds to me like they will all be walking on eggshells. There are so many more things in this bill that protects the insurer and the TPA's than protect the auto glass shop.

Thanks, Mark1. You were right on the money!

You glossed over the repair only issue but I must address it. My question is why is the State of Rhode Island interfering with totally legal business models when they have been protecting a totally corrupt one that allows insurers to contract with a service provider to settle the auto glass claims of their own customers (highly questionable) and to settle the auto glass claims of their direct competitors (unconscionable)?

One of the advantages of mobile only, windshield repair only technicians is the low overhead of their business model. Replacement technicians should provide for indoor facilities as needed, but repair only businesses should not be subjected to this requirement.

The law as written, "(4)If providing motor vehicle glass repair services, possess and maintain the equipment necesary to perform motor vehicle glass replacement services;" forces windshield repair only businesses to either: 1)enter into the replacement business, 2) invest in windshield replacement tools that it will never use or 3) go out of business all together! Here again, Rhode Island is another state that is going against what is good for the consumer because it will limit competition.

One other thing, which coincidentally, is also listed under a paragraph (4) is a restriction to not "perform motor vehicle glass repair or replacement services under an insurance policy without first obtaining insurer approval."
Are policyholders so mindless that they must get "approval" or should they not only need to verify coverage for a specific loss and then get to freely choose the licensed repair facility of their choice? To let the insurance company do anything other than verify coverage is giving them too much power & influence over the customers freedom to choose.

I do agree with Mark1 that there is some good to the proposed law but he has pointed out exactly where the insurance company and Safelite lobbyists have attempted to water it down.

You know, I have to admit I read the bill very fast, and missed both item 4's Davey mentions above, and believe one to be a typo when read in context to the adjacent item which mirrors it; that would be about repair folks owning replacement equipment.

HOWEVER that does not excuse me missing it, nor the other item #4 Davey pointed out, which is much more important.

That would be the second Item #4, which is: "(4) Perform motor vehicle glass repair or replacement services under an insurance policy without first obtaining insurer approval."

This is another bad way of an insurer meddling in the contract between the repairer and insured consumer, when they have not, are not, do not, and likely will not contract for the repairs to the property themselves, so they're going to legislate their approval into a contract for repairs they are not party to?

The insurer cannot approve repairs to property they do not own, without the owner's consent. Hence, whose approval does a repairer need to repair? The property owner's, only. UNLESS the insurer presents themselves as the legal representative of the insured consumer, and contracts for the repairs.

There are no definitions of insurer approval in the text of the law, either.

Finally, this is in General Business Code, not Insurance Code, as I read it, therefore, this allows an insurer to interfere as a third party into a two party repair contract. Now, go back three paragraphs and read again, and you're officially caught in the paradox, what Bloch calls the "feedback loop" only this one is about "approval" instead of "approved pricing". They who are not party to the repair contract are making all of the rules to contracts and purchases and property they are not party to.

What will be next? A consumer can't pay you for his windshield with a credit card (one that isn't covered by insurance) without MasterCard or Visa's "approval" first? Does this sound like a ridiculous simile? Why?

Insurance Proceeds are a method of payment for services rendered and goods sold, offered by a consumer and accepted by a repairer, just like any other business transaction that uses cash, checks, money orders, or credit cards. Just because a business chooses to accept MasterCard or Visa as acceptable payment, that does not make MC or Visa party to the repair contract, nor in a position to "approve" consumer purchases.

Of course, just to be fair, there are provisions in a policy of FNOL and Proof of Loss, and you may want to snap some photos of damage for your customer's and your benefit prior to the repairs, just for documentation purposes, and to save the insurer having to spend all that money to send out an inspector, appraiser, or adjuster.

To exit: "There is no such thing as insurance work" and, borrowed from YEAF, "Who is the Customer?"

JMHNLO

Thanks again, Mark!. For thos interested, here is a link to the Rhode Island Governors contact page. http://www.governor.ri.gov/contact/

It appears to me that the insurance companies have caught on to the assignment of proceeds concept and are now trying to skirt their obligations to pay reasonable invoices for services rendered to their policyholders by tacking on pro insurance company/anti-consumer rules to otherwise proper legislation. JMHO

Interesting that you used the words "skirt their obligations to pay reasonable invoices for services rendered to their policyholders" because I was thinking the same thing when I was forwarded a fax from "Farmers Insurance" (of course we know who really sent it, don't we?) to a non member shop that has some interesting quotes in it, in bold no less.

First, NO PRICING is contained in the fax to the shop regarding their new "pricing standards". How convenient!

Second, the first bold paragraph isn't new to myself, I'm sure I've seen it or a variant of it before. It states that if the shop desires "to bill more than the Farmer's Insurance pricing as stated on the WORK ORDER (caps added), you must advise our policyholders prior to iniitating glass repair/replacement so that they can determine whether THEY ARE WILLING to pay the additional costs for your services. (caps added again)

Since Farmers isn't contracting for the repairs to the car, how is it possible for them to initiate a WORK ORDER to a shop? Does such WORK ORDER come from Farmers, or actually from SGC? Did Farmers contract for REPAIRS with SGC? Can either Farmers or Safelite claim to be issuing WORK ORDERS to shops when they ARE NOT CONTRACTING FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY THEY DO NOT OWN?

Does the shop have any legal right to be advising, informing, lecturing, or flat out blathering to any insured what the limits of his insurance policy are? Even in states that don't have licensed adjusters, some have specific licensing for insurance advisors, brokers, consultants, ect ect. And what about the legalities of such information being given to the insured by a shop about their insurance policy? Would a shop object if an insurer informed a consumer that a shop charges more than a fair and reasonable rate, more than their preferred provider shops, more than they allow, more than they are willing to pay ect ect? Hmmmm....it would seem so, but Farmers has no problem with that, do they, but they lost big when called to the mat on it in Minnesota by Alpine, didn't they? Perhaps that's the reason for the other paragraph, below!

Third, is the second paragraph in bold: "Farmers Insurance does not consent to any assignment of the proceeds of glass claims, or any other interests of the insurance policy, from the policyholder to the glass shop or any other third party, and specifically objects to any such assignment."

Since when does an insurer have a right to tell an insured, which it OWES MONEY TO FOR A COVERED LOSS, how that insured may, or may not, SPEND THAT MONEY WITH OR FOR WHAT PURPOSE? Will Farmers send the check direct the insured for the broken glass before it is replaced? Why NOT? The insured has incurred a loss, and is owed for that loss, whether he repairs it or not. If he chooses not to he loses value in the property. That is the choice of the policyholder.

Further, a shop owner may "specifically object to interference of any third party not party to the repair contract issuing work orders, faxes, pricing dictates, conditions, parts or material parameters, labor caps or limits, ect ect, when that party is NOT PARTY TO THE CONTRACT OF REPAIR. Will Farmers honor the SHOP'S objections to such interference in their interests? Betcha you know that answer.

Slight of hand, and tounge, indeed. All for placement into the "you just can't make this stuff up!" file.

As always, Just My Honest Non Legal Opinion, or, JMHNLO.

OH, and BTW, Jenna, I really hope you're picking all of this up and paying attention. Otherwise, this is just repetitive of so many previous strings....at least the basics is...yet it's so simple to grasp once you realize who is in the contract of repair, and just as importantly, who isn't.

I received the same fax message from SGC/Farmers and was just as pi$$ed off as you. How presumptous of Farmers! I did also recieve a second page with their NAGS referenced pricing too.

How about the paragraph that starts out "Our policyholdershave the right of personal choice............. and the next sentence that begins 'However, where they suggest that if you don't like their offer of pricing that you might consider refusing the job! ARE WE NOT IN BUSINESS TO GET AS MANY JOBS AS WE CAN?

Did you also notice that these new prices do not impact the pricing in the current Farmer's Collision Glass program for work completed in conjunction with auto body repairs?

There is so much wrong with the letter that it could be used as evidence against them in court.

The bottom line is that people buy insurance policies for protection from financial hardships resulting from accidents and not as a group buying club.

Where is the IGA? If this gets signed into law other states will follow!

The silence is deaffening!