Copy & paste

http://www.glassbytes.com/2015/07/connecticut-supreme-court-reverses-35-million-judgment-against-insurer/

You click on a link at the end of the article and then read the Supreme Court justices opinion. My reply follows.

Court can't figure out who is the buyer.








Who is the Customer?

It also is undisputed
that, with respect to the auto body repair services purchased
in this state, almost all of those services are
purchased by insurance companies.7



7 Robert Skrip, the owner of Skrip’s Auto Body, acknowledged at trial
that ‘‘almost all of [his] business comes from insurance companies . . . .’’
Harold Platz, the owner of Artie’s Auto Body, Inc., testified that his business
is ‘‘99 percent insurance.’’ Michael Walsh, the owner of T & J Auto Body
of East Hartford, also testified that ‘‘99 percent of [his] work, maybe more,
is . . . insurance work.’

If the insurance company/policy cannot dictate to the policyholder where they have their vehicle repaired, why does the insurance company have a right to negotiate anything with the repair shop of choice?

If the insurance company sets the consumers premium based on the assumption of paying full retail for repairs (or even more as an extra cushion), how does the consumer benefit when the insurance company negotiates a lower price and then keeps all the profit?

Why does a repair shop's right to set its own prices take a back seat to an insurers desire to pay less, especially when the insurance company's business model is based on chance?

If the insurance policy indemnifies the policyholder against property damage and doesn't spell out limits for specific types of repair, aside from the policyholder's selected deductible, why should the insurer expect the policyholder to pay any more than the agreed upon deductible?

I know, our efforts are futile.......................

Let's be clear. There is no such thing as "insurance" work.

The insurance proceeds are no different than a credit card, debit card, cash or check.

Shops sending the bill through the network or insurer are merely extending credit to the
owner of the vehicle with expectations of being paid; same the previously mentioned forms of payment.



Insurers only negotiate when they elect to exercise the "right of repair", and in hand with that comes the liability for the repair.





Who is the Customer?

How can the insurer invoke the right to contract for repair when the policyholder has the right to choose the service provider according to the law?

If the policyholder has the right to freely choose the service provider by law, wouldn't it be illegal for an insurer to retain that right in their contract with the policyholder?