ATTENTION: The 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!
State Farm has apparantly changed their policy in 33 states. They were doing this at least three months before the new O/A and Metryx deadline of October, but said nothing. I think that silence on this by State Farm speaks volumes.
Changes to the policy include:
From the mailer to policyholders in the notification summary:
"We have added language stating that replacement glass need not have any insignia, logo, trademark, etching, or other mark that was on the replaced glass."
From the mailer to policyholders in the notification of the policy language changes:
"YOU agree that replacement glass need not have any insignia, logo, trademark, etching, or other mark that was on the replaced glass."
Changes to the O/A include:
The shops agreement twice to return the car to pre-loss condition, once specifically saying the shop will use the most competitively priced parts that will return the car to preloss condition.
The shop agrees to disclose to the consumer the parts used to repair the car.
So, the shop must use the cheapest parts while SF decides the price paid, but I wonder if SF will check to see if the PART chosen, at the most competitive price, will/did return the car to preloss condition? Good thing METRYX will assure the consumer gets a quality installation......ya, right.
After the overturning of the Avery vs State Farm class, it seems to me that the Farm has made definitive moves to shift the liability of parts choice to the shop, but written OEM parts out of the policy. Can anyone guess what's around the corner next? We should be able to.
Isn't every piece of glass required by law to have a bug on it? I think SF meant to say "no MATCHING logo, etching, etc". But to ask a policyholder to "agree that replacement glass need not have ANY insignia, logo, trademark, etching, or other mark that was on the replaced glass" is not an area they have authority over. Wonder if this language could come back to bite them?
So if we are to play their game as AGR shops, we would need to 1) charge the ins. co. alot more for the work performed, and every part we need, which of course will be "premium" parts and 2) find the cheapest junk around to use for said parts above and make sure the consumer re-assigns all liabilty back the the paying party (the ins. co.)