In a recent email put out by the FTC I read the following exerpt,

"Competition and collaboration are not an either/or proposition, despite what some have claimed. Simply put: the antitrust laws permit procompetitive collaborations. As the Commission has urged time and time and time again, the antitrust laws are not a barrier to the formation of efficient health care collaboratives that benefit health care consumers.

Immediately the bells & whistles went off. This is what the auto insurers and their TPA's have been arguing all along! What they have been leaving out and what the judges and authorities have glossed over are the following facts:
1. Auto insurance policies are not health insurance policies in that the "four corners" of the contract between the insurer and the policyholder do not (and cannot) require the use of "preferred providers" for auto damage repair. On the contrary, from as far back as the 1963 Consent Decree through all the subsequent Federal and State laws regarding steering and the use of deception to protect consumers, insurers are barred from doing ANYTHING that has the EFFECT of even subtly suggesting that a consumer (policyholder) use or not use a certain service provider. Now, when you essentially contract with a service provider to settle claims, is that not a blaring violation of the public policy?

2. Contracts between auto insurers and potential auto damage repair service providers have their own "four corners" and have nothing to do with the "business of insurance" according to the tests (different prongs) applied by the courts. Contracts of this nature should be considered suspect on the face since auto insurers are banned from steering policyholders to service providers which would be the primary reason for a service provider to enter into the contract. What if the insurer required the service provider to use cheap, reverse engineered aftermarket parts that may not work as well as parts made by the original equipment manufacturer. Where is the consumer benefit to contracts like that?

3. Contracts for repair between consumers and their freely chosen auto damage service provider(s) have their own "four corners" and are not to be tortiously inteferred with by entities outside the contract including auto insurers. Service providers should be advocates for their customers, not for the insurer.

4. Policyholders have every reason to believe that their insurers will open their purses and PROMPTLY pay reasonable invoices submitted after services have been rendered for established covered losses.

5. Auto insurers issue policies with the knowledge that they cannot legally steer their policyholders to or from certain service providers, so they must be taking that into consideration when they set premiums. They also know that many service providers are not going to accept their low ball offers, especially when the service provider has won over the consumer through their own efforts and not by an illegal referral from an insurer. So, the insurer must also be taking that into consideration when setting premiums. So, when service providers get short paid by an insurer it doesn't affect premiums. It only affects the profits of the insurer or the service provider. The service providers only option is to litigate.

6. Procompetitive collaboration that results from threats, intimidation and/or coercion cannot be legal.

Davey has some excellent points!

1. If an insurer contracts with a member of the Safelite Group, they are, in fact, contracting with all the members of the group. So by contracting with Safelite Solutions, an insurer is also knowingly and openly endorsing the Safelite brand and Safelite AutoGlass, the service provider. Since the insureds will be subjected to simply hearring the Safelite brand name several times when making an auto glass claim, it is easy to conclude that the insurer, at the very least, is planting a seed that the insurance company wants the insured to use Safelite AutoGlass if not that they MUST use Safelite AutoGlass in violation of public policy.

2. The Safelite and auto insurer lobbyists would have one believe that policyholders are helpless and have no idea where to get their vehicles repaired.
On the contrary, most policyholders already know who they want to work on their vehicles. It is unconscionable to direct those policyholders who have already freely chosen a glass repair facility to a Safelite representative. Even worse is directing a Safelite competitor to Safelite to satisfy the claims process.
How many untold policyholders have abandoned their first choice of repair facility after having been illegally coerced by their insurers claims handling process? Unconscionable doesn't even seem harsh enough for a description.

3. Because of all the laws and public policy establishing a consumers right to choose the repair facility after a loss occurs, and all the restrictions against auto insurers steering a claimant to or from a repair facility, that insurers must assume at the time premiums are being calculated (set)that they will be paying top dollar whenever a claim is made. Of course they are only going to make a low ball offer initially to settle the claim. That is one of the ways they make their profit. So, for a lobbyist to suggest that what is really coerced anti-competitve collaboration, is somehow pro competitive collaboration and that it results in keeping premiums low is nothing more than balderdash.