“The Circuit Court goes on to write, “There is no claim, much less evidence that Safelite’s communications to its customers were false, misleading or illegal. Indeed, there is no claim of consumer complaints about the effect of Safelite’s business model.

The ruling yesterday should not have come as a surprise to anyone. The foregoing sums it up, especially no consumer complaints. That is the recurring theme when I made a presentation to NCOIL, the NYS Attorney General's Office, NY State legislators and others. In the case of CT, the AG has demonstrated concern for the glass shops and a consumer's right to choose a service provider. However, as a general rule, most legislators and other public servants do not care and I do not suspect you will find the courts will rule against Safelite's argument for their right to free speech.

Kind of quiet on this issue... hmmm

The judges ruled correctly but not for the reasons given. As I said before, the CT legislature knew and felt that there was something wrong but two wrongs do not make a right. The new law forced Safelite to name a competitor which is exactly what we have been complaining about only it is the insurance company that is forcing us to introduce our customers to Safelite and not the state.

I would like to know what if anything the attorney representing CT had to say in the oral arguments. Had they argued that the insurance companies were guilty of steering when they forward claim calls to Safelite, or that the insurance companies were guilty of violating Public Act 13-67—An Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work when they failed to advise claimants, "You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know. ", before forwarding the call to Safelite. Did the CT attorney introduce any of the deceptive scripts that Safelite is required to use? Apparently not. The judges seemed to fall hook line and sinker for all the C r a p that the Safelite attornies threw at them.

I guess none of the judges watched the NBC expose' where the Safelite CSR still scheduled a customer to use a Safelite shop over 50 miles away even after he had spelled out the name of the glass shop he wanted to use. Consumers complain all the time. They just don't have the time or inclination to get involved. Consumers complain to the shops, to Safelite's CSR's (there should be a wealth of recorded calls), and to their insurance agents and insurance companies. It is just that out of all the entities that are receiving the complaints, only one has any incentive to air the complaint and that is the shopowner. The others would only be shooting themselves in the foot by bringing the consumer complaints to the attention of the department of insurance.

The CT attornies couldn't put up much of a fight without admitting that they have failed miserably in enforcing the laws already on the books.

Someone has communicated to me a host of Catch 22's that this ruling brings up.

JB has hit another on the head with a very fine point sledgehammer.

"The new law forced Safelite to name a competitor which is exactly what we have been complaining about only it is the insurance company that is forcing us to introduce our customers to Safelite and not the state."

Now that you have this ruling coming from a District Court, what will the state do when, as outlined above, each and every glass shop is required to introduce its customer's to its direct competitor when they do any work for an insured consumer contracting with them for the repairs to the property?

Not only is a shop providing its proprietary data including all aspects of customer, part, price, and locations to its direct competitor, the direct competitor has pronounced and defined the "direct competitor" issue fully and completely. We've seen and heard the scripts, seen the emails, seen the letters sent to consumers.

And again, all this has little to do with a "TPA that also has installers", and the court noted that shortfall as well.

Right now, the simple solution that should be the "middle ground" favoring NO ONE, and effectively leveling the playing field to promote a completely open market place free of any favoritism, is simple.

NO ONE shall be allowed to market ANY services of ANY kind to ANY insured consumer AT THE TIME they are filing a claim.

Insurers can market consumers with their programs before hand. So can repairers, so can networks. But NOT AT THE TIME THEY ARE FILING A CLAIM, which could be misleading to an average consumer to make them believe it is part of their insurance policy, or a service provided by the insurer, that is NOT PART OF THEIR INSURANCE CONTRACT.

Problem solved, no favoritism, no advantage nor disadvantage to anyone.

Unless, of course, there's more going on here than the court and state is being told.

As always, JMHNLO.

You are right on, Mark1. I have been suggesting all along that the legislation be an ammendment to the current law regarding improper claim practices.
1.) Make it an improper claim practice to force a policyholder to deal with a competitor of his/her chosen repair facility.
2.) Make it an improper claim practice to force a repair facility to have to deal with a competitor during the claims process.
3.) Make it an unfair claims practice to force a repair facility to have to divulge proprietary information to a competitor during the claims process.
4.) Make it an unfair claims practice to force a repair facility to join a competitors network in order to become a "preferred" vendor.

Last but not least, pricing and attempts to fix prices should be banned as a requirement to participate in a network.

Every state already has an unfair or improper claims practices law on the books.
Each state should amend the law as noted above. Possibly the NAIC could also be lobbied since they make "model" unfair claim settlement practices regulations.

JB,

Stop trying to legislate, let alone legislate insurers. You don't have the money or backing.

But if you insist on the legislative path, which is laden with pitfalls due to the above obvious problems that others have repeatedly learned about the hard way, then legislate yourself(yourselves), and keep it simple.

"It shall be illegal for a repairer to negotiate ANY aspect of the repairs to the property with ANY person or entity other than the legal owner of the property or the owner's legal representative."

Why would/how could an insurer possibly object to such a law or such language?

JMHNLO

This is really disappointing. As independents we are doomed from the get go. An insurance customers very first call they make off of the back of their insurance card is to safelite. Just trying to compete with that alone is quite the challenge. Absurd.

The calls do not go directly to Safelite. The calls go to the insurance company. The insurance company uses an auto attendant which has the policyholder press certain numbers depending on what kind of problem they have. For English press "1", to file a claim press "2", for homeowner claims press "1", for auto claims press "2", for glass only claims press "6" etc Some of the auto attendants even incorporate voice recognition so one doesn't have to press anything, but only say "glass only claim".

The insurance companies are shirking their duties when the auto attendant is not programmed to inform policyholders of their right to choose where they have their auto repaired before forwarding the call to Safelite which not only administers the claim but also schedules repairs at affiliate glass repair facilities.

Since it has been determined in court through testimony of Safelite attorneys and subsequent judicial rulings that other independent glass repair shops are competitors of Safelite (even before a policyholder is referred to a Safelite shop). Then it follows that illegal steering has occurred when the insurance company forwarded the call to Safelite.

Gary, Name one insurance company that puts a diret line to Safelite on the insurance cards that they issue to each policyholder.

Most insurance cards will have a customer service number and a Claim number.
Since "glass only" is only one type of potential claim, it is the norm for the insurance company to list a number that first rings in at the actual insurance company.

The law just changed the other day when three appeals court judges ruled that independant glass repair facilities are competitors of Safelite Solutions, LLC (Safelite) Unfortunately, lawyers and even judges have been baffled by the Safelite B.S.

I whole heartedly agree that independants need to advertise and promote the fact that customers have the right to choose.

From now on, when a customer calls, tell them to come into the shop before calling their insurance company. When they get there, call the claim number on their insurance card and DO NOT press the number for a glass only claim. When you get a live person on the line, tell them that you want to verify coverage and make the first notice with them instead of Safelite. In other words, ingore Safelite.

Ask the insurance company person for a mailing address, fax number or email address to where you can send your invoice.

When the insurance companies figure out that they are going to be handling a bunch of glass claim calls maybe they will at least find a different TPA. If they do and you don't want to deal with that TPA either, keep calling the in house claims division.

LOTS of insurance companies have the "glass claims only" 800 number listed on the back of the card. And it indeed goes straight to safelite.

Well i think its time for independents to take a different approach here. Not saying this is the right approach, BUT we have an auto body shop here that BLASTS all the insurance companies for their unfair practices for referring customers to their preferred shops. He does this practice through the radio advertisements they do, and he has one of the biggest auto body shops in town. Hundreds of cars at a time. He explains that the insured has the right to choose and don't go where your told to....just a thought guys..

Okay, Gary. I stand corrected but the point is, don't call the glass only number. Make that part of your advertising.

Gary says USAA has a direct line to Safelite on their insurance cards. There are other numbers on the card also. What other company has a direct line to safelite on their card?

Apparently, it is something new with USAA and they may regret it in the long run.

I called the number Gary gave and the Safelite CSR said I could use any shop in the country but that I had to deal with Safelite to file the claim. She also said Safelite AutoGlass had been contracted by USAA to handle the claims process. I think she meant Safelite Solutions but that was yet another example of a confused employee. When I told her that I would not deal with a Safelite employee and that I wanted to speak to a USAA employee, at first she offered to transfer me to a corporate manager. I asked if it would be aUSAA employee and then she said she would transfer me to USAA but they would just tell me that I had to deal with safelite. While I was in the transfer mode, I hung up before anyone came on the line but the point is that if you stick to your guns, Safelite will have to transfer you to an insurance company employee.

Easier yet, never call the "glass only" line.