AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™ Message Forum

AGRR Magazine
AGRR™ Magazine

glassBYTEs.com

AGRSS

NWRA

Key Media & Research
Privacy Policy


ATTENTIONThe glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.

You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
General Forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

Does any one know the shops involved with this?

Maybe this will get somewhere,I spoke with our Atty. and he thinks this has

potential to pick up traction. Class action is needed.

Re: Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

Avatar, were you prophetic, or did you know, and post 'tongue in cheek'?

http://pub24.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2036554146&frmid=6&msgid=963275&cmd=show

JMHNLO

Re: Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

1. Safelite Solutions & Safelite Autoglass are essentially one and the same, as they are both governed by the same or common Directors.

2. Public policy set in 1963 by a Federal Consent Decree, which addressed the relationship between auto insurers and auto repairers, bans conflicts of interest when settling auto insurance claims and specifically reinforces the bans against price fixing, use of coercion and boycotting when an insurer deals with auto repairers.

3. Since 1963, most auto insurers have thumbed their collective noses at the 1963 Consent Decree by continuing to coerce auto service providers to join DRP's and Networks.

4. Auto insurer agreements with Safelite are particularly egregious because they permit a service provider not only an inside track to auto glass claimants, but also permit said service provider (Safelite) with the ability to dominate direct competitors during the claim settlement process. It is a conflict of interest for a service provider to settle the claims of their own customers and an even bigger one to permit a service provider the means to tortuously interfere with the businesses of their direct competitors. NEVER should one business be forced to deal with a direct competitor during the claim settlement process!

Re: Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

We do need to get together all small shop to rid Certain large shops from dominating all sides of auto glass installation aspect not only do they sell wholesale they sell retail cutting out the little shops They also have their own referral department which they used to distribute insurance claims to their shop preferably over the little shops. They make the standards too hard for the little shops to get on the top of the referral system which put the little guy to the bottom which means he’s not going to get many referrals at all if any

Re: Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

Auto glass shop in PA
We do need to get together all small shop to rid Certain large shops from dominating all sides of auto glass installation aspect not only do they sell wholesale they sell retail cutting out the little shops They also have their own referral department which they used to distribute insurance claims to their shop preferably over the little shops. They make the standards too hard for the little shops to get on the top of the referral system which put the little guy to the bottom which means he’s not going to get many referrals at all if any
Insurance companies are banned from referring policyholders to specific service providers (steering) unless a policyholder specifically asks to be referred. Once a policyholder has selected a service provider, insurers are banned from steering policyholders away from said service provider.

If a policyholder gives up the right to freely choose a service provider and specifically asks an insurer to be referred, the insurer has no obligation to include any specific service provider.

That being said, insurers seem to be violating public policy when they contract with biased and/or conflicted TPA's.

Re: Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Auto Shops’ Lawsuit Against Insurers

Auto glass shop in PA
We do need to get together all small shop to rid Certain large shops from dominating all sides of auto glass installation aspect not only do they sell wholesale they sell retail cutting out the little shops They also have their own referral department which they used to distribute insurance claims to their shop preferably over the little shops. They make the standards too hard for the little shops to get on the top of the referral system which put the little guy to the bottom which means he’s not going to get many referrals at all if any
Your thought process is incorrect.

Distill your thinking down.

ANY third party, not party to the contract of repair, interfering with the contract of repair in any way, billing conditions, pricing, parts, methodology, customer interaction, warranty, ect ect, ANY injecting of ANY conditions, when the insurer nor the third party is NOT contracting, or subcontracting for the repairs to the property with the repair vendor, is wrong, for several reasons.

Therefore, your references to "owning their own shops" is no different than "referring to their own members" if they operate as such. Extending that line of logic, then, if you simply inject the "approved" parameters listed above, and any others, upon the ENTIRE marketplace, STILL is wrong.

Repeat: There is NO such thing as insurance work; Insurers are NOT contracting for the repairs to the property, nor invoking any insurance policy condition that would allow them to do so. They CAN, but DO NOT, because, I believe, the liability they would incur FOR the repairs if they chose to do so.

If you don't change your thought process, you CODIFY and ENDORSE and ACCEPT the system of price fixing and market control that destroys the honest actual OPEN market, and accept it as valid, so long as the Third Party operates "fairly"???? And WHEN have you seen that happen, to date?? Would you trust any entity to invoke a "fair and reasonable" system upon you that you have NO input nor control over, based on "the colonel's secret recipe"? ANY system that can manipulate or be forced upon an OPEN market, which will DEFINE ANY open market conditions upon the market, including but not limited to pricing, is wrong. Open market means OPEN market, and is the very definition of competition. PRICE is only ONE factor of competition, and we are in a SERVICE industry, not just to sell glass. There is NO system in place now to quantify earning a consumer's TRUST to let us TOUCH their second largest investment they make.

I trust I have politely helped you see the boomerang tripping hazard in your line of thought, in a "be VERY careful what you wish for, you may GET it" analogy.

As always, JMHNLO....no legal advise here at all. But I can read case law(s), and statutes. And....it's almost time for lunch!

Copyright © AGRR™/glassBYTEs™ All rights reserved.
20 PGA Drive, Suite 201, Stafford, Virginia 22554
540-720-5584 (P) 540-720-5687 (F) info@agrrmag.com
www.agrrmag.com / www.glassbytes.com