Based on evidence gathered between 1947 and 1963, the United States of America brought a civil suit in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK against several
auto insurers alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act (sections 1 & 3). Then Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy, filed the suit. What is now known as the Consent Decree of 1963 was issued by the presiding federal Judge.

At issue was the way the auto insurers colluded to pressure auto damage adjusters and auto repair shops to submit to demands for discounts in pricing and labor rates or be boycotted. Final judgement occurred when the over one hundred thirty insurers consented to follow the courts decree without giving any testimony or going to trial but also not admitting to any of the issues brought forth.

The Federal Court ordered, adjudged and decreed in part, that each defendant was enjoined from placing into effect any plan, program or practice which has the purpose or effect of: directing, advising or otherwise suggesting that any person or firm do business or refuse to do business with any independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shop with respect to the repair of damaged automobile vehicles; or fixing, establishing, maintaining or otherwise controlling the prices to be paid for the appraisal of damage to automotive vehicles, or to be charged by independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shops for the repair of damage to automotive vehicles or for replacement parts or labor in connection therewith, whether by coercion, boycott or intimidation or by the use of flat rate or parts manuals or otherwise.

Could "otherwise" be construed as network pricing, software pricing or benchmark pricing?

Absolutely!

One can easily do an internet search on "the 1963 consent decree" to find all about it and read the whole thing. see: https://www.ican2000.com/documents/1963/

Fast forward 50 years. One would wonder why the U.S. Dept. of Justice is looking the other way when it comes to the obvious violations. Can they not see through all the propaganda offered by the insurance industry? DRP's, networks, offer and acceptance agreements or whatever else one wishes to call the plans or programs put forth by the insurance industry must not include any reference to pricing if whatever it is called is published and offerred to more than one competitor or it violates the price fixing laws.

Administration of the claims settlement process must not have "the purpose or effect of: directing, advising or otherwise suggesting that any person or firm do business or refuse to do business with any independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shop with respect to the repair of damaged automobile vehicles; or fixing, establishing, maintaining or otherwise controlling the prices to be paid for the appraisal of damage to automotive vehicles, or to be charged by independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shops for the repair of damage to automotive vehicles or for replacement parts or labor in connection therewith, whether by coercion, boycott or intimidation or by the use of flat rate or parts manuals or otherwise."

interesting. I've always wondered why that wasnt considered "price fixing".

If it is illegal to place "into effect any plan, program or practice which has the purpose or effect of: directing, advising or otherwise suggesting that any person or firm do business or refuse to do business with any independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shop with respect to the repair of damaged automobile vehicles; or fixing, establishing, maintaining or otherwise controlling the prices to be paid for the appraisal of damage to automotive vehicles, or to be charged by independent or dealer franchised automotive repair shops for the repair of damage to automotive vehicles or for replacement parts or labor in connection therewith, whether by coercion, boycott or intimidation or by the use of flat rate or parts manuals or otherwise.",

then commercial free speech that violates the above tenet is not protected.......

And...none of those laws have changed, with the exception that RICO law has been added on top of them.

JMHNLO

Here is an interesting read:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=14b5b6e0-8753-4f09-a947-38bfb500f599

So the Sherman Act was in the 1890's Then added to it in 1963 the consent decree. Looks like every time a network calls a shop and they say, "can you accept the following pricing" that YES INDEED the network AND the shop are guilty of collaboration in pricing or "price fixing". Then when the network refuses to send the insured's info over to the shop of choice they are in direct violation of the consent decree.

Very interesting. some have said the laws are already there, we just need to get the laws enforced. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT RICO.

Might be fun for the next call from a network to respond with "well csr, by law we are not suppose to speak of pricing,(Sherman act & Consent Decree of 63), so I will not break the law with you. please send the customer info that is requesting my shop over for my revue"! INTERESTING.............

Does anyone remember the McCarron Act (not sure of spelling) & would it apply?

Yes. The McCarron Ferguson Act is a Federal Law passed in 1945 and was taken into consideration by the judge that issued the 1963 Consent decree.

see https://www.pciaa.net/web/sitehome.nsf/lcpublic/210?opendocument

It does not exempt the insurance industry from anti-trust activity and it for sure does not have anything to do with anti-trust activity in the auto glass industry.

McCarron-Ferguson was passed primarily so that small insurance companies could be founded, compete and survive by gaining access to claims experience without being accused of anti-trust activity. This was supposed to help increase competition in the insurance industry.

However, because of what has happened in the health insurance industry, there have been several attempts to repeal the legislation.

It appears that the 1963 Consent Decree makes it very claer that auto insurance companies are barred from using referrals as a way to negotiate prices and further barred from doing anything that has the effect of price control.

Networks, whether formed by insurance companies, TPA's or repair shop organizations, that have more than one repair shop agreeing on pricing without legal justification are in violation of the Sherman Antitrust ACT and the 1963 Consent Decree.

Insurance companies must pay invoices that are reasonable. Insurance companies that consistantly short pay invoices and then lose in court are in violation of most state laws regarding fair claim settlement practices if they continue to short pay invoices that have been ajudged reasonable.

This is not a new topic. Suffice to say, THE 63 Consent Decree isn't A law, and the feds are not going to enforce THE 63 Decree.

The Decree demonstrates that the acts are violations, that the Feds deemed such to be the case clear back in '63, despite McCarran Fergusson which was passed in about '45, and none of the laws have changed, save for adding RICO law on top of them.

What needs to be done is enforcment of the laws, not the decree. Keep that in mind if you pursue it, to avoid excuses of why they won't enforce it. In my opinion, once again, justice is about politics, an inexcusable yet common situation. Politics should never dictate justice, or application of justice, but, reality says otherwise.

Having said that, http://www.consentdecree.com/ will provide some other background reading. The site has been up for many years, the discussion board is no longer up, but it used to have all the relevant information one needs to understand the 63 Consent Decree and apply the knowledge.

JMHNLO

The way I see it; The 1963 consent Decree provided the definition of "steering" for the insurance industry's relationship with the automotive repair industry and it doesn't have anything to do with wheels, tie rods, racks and pinions etc.

The insurance industry should stick to what they sell and what their policies cover, in other words "the business of insurance". Auto repair shops should make quality repairs without cutting corners and charge reasonable rates. Insurance policies cover repairs done at reasonable rates.

Consumers have a right to choose who repairs their property just like they have the right to choose who insures their property.

Law Enforcement officials should enforce the laws......