The TPA Sharks are in a frenzy & now turning on each other. Perhaps together they will create their own destruction. If all the facts of how a TPA operates come to light, maybe some Govt. official will see how ridiculous and detrimental to the free enterprise system these Insurance Co. & TPA relationships are.

Lynx states the legislation doesn't apply to them. I can't tell them apart.
Not owning installation shops doesn't mean your not steering.

So from what I can see is "s" is scared and doesn't want to sink all by itself...kind of like when one kid gets in trouble and says but the other kids were doing it to.... why am I in trouble..big babies and tattle tales ...lol

The better point is that all shops should respond to any request made by Safelite Solutions in the EXACT SAME MANNER as Lynx just did in their Motion to Quash the subpoena from Safelite.

I believe that paragraphs 47-48 would hold true in any argument to prevent independent shops from sending ANY OF THEIR INFORMATION to Safelite.

We should all "Thank" Lynx for providing the correct response and reflex to any request from a TPA who owns shops. Shops (all Indies) should send in a copy of Lynx's Motion to Quash with any request for pricing from Safelite.

On the other side of the argument, I am wondering just how long it will take to figure out how many times Lynx has had the "undue burden" of recommending a Safelite Auto Glass shop to fulfill a claim? This question was somehow missed in Safelite's fishing expedition*** I meant "subpoena."

I find this hilarious that no one is looking at the symbiotic relationship between Safelite's custom "Offers" that we know exist in the Lynx system when and where we know Safelite will work cheaper than anyone else. They forgot to request that answer in their subpoena too.

I think that somehow the new management at Solera has missed this finer point of B to B commerce as we know that Safelite buys glass from PGW and is probably their largest customer. Won't this cut into PGW's profits if they don't trade claims for glass sales? Doesn't Tony Aquila know this by now? Someone should remind him soon, or; at least before he becomes the "keynote" speaker at the big convention.

I'll bet real money that Tony A. becomes the new Fresh Prince of this industry and that we'll now see a different view point from his perspective.

I heard he's quite the orator and can "sell ice cream to Native Alaskans" and it appears that someone from this site or the other news site is enamored with him and his take-over of Lynx and other subsidiaries. I wonder why he's not aware of these other finer nuances?

Doesn't he know that Lynx/he isn't the largest processor of claims yet? His lawyer didn't and said that Lynx was the largest. Maybe this is just a stick measuring contest between Feeney/Aquila? The "tattle-tale" theory is good enough for me for right now.

Doesn't he know that insurers only care about "price" and the minimally accepted replacement for the lowest price mantra in this industry? He must either have some new technology that will allow the independents to fulfill glass claims without the need for Safelite, or; he's just a little slow catching on to this industry?

What is the difference between a safelite participant, a safelite owned shop and an independent dancing shop, they all benefit from the steering.

This must be a hill that S is ready to die on. Fight on PGW. Two worthy adversaries. Both with plenty of money to spend on the lawyers. Love to be a fly on the wall.

Some still believe there is a good network, I've yet to see it. No desire to become a network lemming.

JB-

Unfortunately, your first paragraph is not correct.

Your statement - "TPA network participation agreements that require members to agree to set prices violate antitrust price fixing laws because two or more shops in competition with each other are agreeing to pricing without justification in order to get preferential treatment over non members." would be accurate if more than 2 parties sign the individual agreement.

As I understand it, since each signed agreement is between the TPA and a single company, there is no collusion between more than 2 entities.

Sad, but true

LIGG, That is a pretty lame argument. It is called Safelite Network Participation Agreement. Rebuttal number one-How can Safelite Solutions negotiate a guaranteed average invoice (GAI)unless it has the power to influence Safelite AutoGlass (the fulfillment Division)? It can't but it does. Safelite Solutions is controlled by Thomas Feeney who also controls Safelite AutoGlass. Safelite Solutions and Safelite AutoGlass are both members of Safelite Group Inc so essentially Safelite Solutions llc is a competitor to anyone that signs the Network Participation agreement.

Rebuttal number two-the term "network" connotes not just two but many. When more than one shop signs the same agreement with Safelite Solutions (whether it is considered a competitor or not (and it is-see rebuttal #1)the shop owner knowingly agrees to pricing in order to receive preferential treatment over those shops that elect not to participate in the network.

Rebuttal number three-If insurance companies do not have more than one auto glass repair facility agreeing to their dictated prices, then how can they establish their so called "market rates"?