I realize that it is not really a 1st Amendment violation for an insurance company to compel a repair facility to communicate with Safelite during the claims settlement process, however, your department should consider what is happening to independent non-Safelite repair facilities every day. Back in 1963, the United States of America brought a suit against the auto insurance industry because of the way they were illegally controlling the auto insurance claims settlement process in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That led to an out of court settlement known as The Consent Decree of 1963 thus setting public policy regarding the undue influence of auto insurers on auto damage appraisals and pricing for automotive repairs.

Your department does have jurisdiction over the insurance companies and their arrangements with third parties that administer their claims. In this instance, we are talking about auto glass claims. That gives the department of insurance jurisdiction over the agreements between Safelite Solutions, LLC and an auto insurer. The Guaranteed Average Invoice (GAI)scheme should be investigated thouroughly because in my opinion it makes the TPA a competitor to repair facilities. Your departments should also hsve jurisdiction over the network agreements between Safelite Solutions, LLC and their competitor repair facilities.

Safelite has rightly argued that for the state of CT to compel it to have to communicate the name of a competitor repair facility to policyholders is not fair because the policyholder will feel as if something is wrong with Safelite.

Non-Safelite repair facilities are being wronged for the same reason when they are compelled to call Safelite during the claims settlement process because policyholders may not only feel as if something is wrong with the non-Safelite repair facility, they may also be deceived into thinking that they either cannot use the non-Safelite repair facility or must use Safelite for their repairs. That is a deceptive business practice! The policyholder should never have been put into this conflict of interest during the claims settlement process. The non-Safelite repair facility should never have to communicate with its competitor, Safelite, during the claims settlement process.

Safelite had to know that their business model was flawed whenever they established it. Insurance companies had to know that Safelites business model was flawed. So neither has a complaint if they are barred from using it.

If it is not already a violation of the improper claims settlement law of your state, then you should specifically add that it is a violation of the improper claims settlement law to:
1.) require a policyholder to communicate with a competitor of their chosen repair facility during the claims settlement process.
2.) require a repair facility to communicate with a competitor during the claims settlement process or
3.) for an insurance company to contract with a biased third party to administratively handle any part of the claims settlement process.

Excellent letter. Unfortunately if you are not a personal friend or making BIG contributions to the people who have the power to make the changes, you may as well blow your nose in the paper it is written on. Hate to sound like a downer & hope I'M WRONG, I've just fought too hard & too long with no results to have faith.

This draft provides a starting point for discussion, that is worth something. First thing that comes to mind is that the draft lacks focus, we tie to many ideas into one letter for someone not involved daily in the industry. Second, why does the good network vs. bad network question seem to be evident in this letter. Clearly all networks lack standing in the contract of repair. Repeating the Safelite name gives the impression of sour grapes.

Ask yourself "what is the ask", I do not clearly see it here, and certainly not focused enough for officials in every state. Exactly what are you asking for? You need precise detail with the solution clearly written.

Connecticut's legislators might be able to connect a few of the dots as the issue is fresh in their mind. You have fired a shotgun, when you need a laser pointer. This draft attempts to tie the consent decree, GAI, Safelite's business model, bad faith claims and more into one document.


Would you really send this to the insurance commissioner or would it be better to send it to the attorney general of every state?


Instead of asking for legislative help, where the industry lacks the resources for an effective fight, lets keep it simple.



Who is the Customer?

You have to work with your local representatives. Explain to them how you are being affected by the practices that are currently being used and how can they present your issues up the chain. At a certain point in time your group may need to consult/hire a lobbyist to work for/with you and the best interests of the representative. It has to be a grass roots thing. it is hard to star at the top because you don't know what you need to know in order to make the change.
You have to work within their system.

"Safelite (not any insurance company or any other TPA) was the entity that sued the state of CT."

To the casual observer, your mention of that company numerous times would indicate your wish to single out one company. Not something you would want to do if you want action, on the surface it appears to be finger pointing. Just a reminder, no TPA has standing in the contract of repair, if shops were to refuse to work in the manner of a subcontractor this entire discussion would be moot.



"The "ask" is in the last paragraph. The legislation should be directed at the unfair claims settlement laws."

Do you think legislators personally write the bills they vote on? You will have to make it easier for them, hand them the proposed legislation. The people you are trying to sway have more pressing issues than this to deal with. Having a room full of auto body/auto glass shop owners will help your case at any hearing, you still have to beat the suits from the insurers though. This won't occur until you are much further along in the process.


If you are attempting to be convincing you need to focus directly on the issue of unfair claims settlement and that issue alone. If you were a state senator reading our draft, you would be lost at the first mention of the decree. You need to build a case, offer supporting statements, and end with a detailed summary; you have to lead the reader through your argument step by step. I can't say our draft has accomplished that. Remember, the reader has no concept of the items we wish him/her to act upon, and they certainly don't have the will, we have to provide them with that.



Who is the Customer?

Send it to CT. See how it worked out for them..........

BOOM!

The CT legislature recognized that what was happening was inherently wrong and tried to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, their legislation forced Safelite to steer policyholders to its competitors. That part of the law was shot down but Safelite still had to pay an almost million dollar fine in the form of legal fees. Giggle all you want.

Had they ammended their unfair claims settlement practices law as suggested, the first domino would have fallen.