Has Richard found Safelites achilles heel?

FYI http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/08182015CampfieldvsSafelite.pdf

Copy and paste the above URL and read on.

Laughable. Are YOU going to start repairing cracks up to 14".

Be careful what you wish for.

I have repaired them over 30" !, not that I necessarily recommend it.

Really, its about the size of the crack; or might it be about the ability of a competitor to control the market?

It's a continuation on his (repeated) failed attempts at suing the insurance industry (State Farm). Even if he succeeds, which I highly doubt, the affect on ALL of us will not be favorable. Like I said, are you ready to do 14" cracks? Think it thru!

?s
what percentage of repairs are needed on aftermarket ( Previously replaced ) w?s s ?
When is a w/s declared un repairable for other reasons (bad install, wear and tear, other/) ?
Define Other ???
Sorry not up on standards for repair.

14" cracks are no problem. Neither are 15" or 16" etc. I do not see where it will have negative effects on the rest of us if he is successful and I think his case not only has a lot of merit but could actually help us all.

If the case does not get summarily dismissed by a judge such as the one in Florida that doesn't understand the relationships between consumers, their insurers and their auto body repair shops, Richard should make out pretty well.

I hope, in the discovery phase, he forces SL to produce every single contract with every single insurer and fleet owner. That should be very revealing!

The bottom line is that the customer gets to choose whether the windshield is repaired or replaced.

Uhhhhh...I thought rolags already thought it through and said 14 inches some time ago. I have not seen the six inch script change since. It's more likely you don't like long cracks because you don't get paid to do them or don't want to pay for them. No one can force you or the consumer to do anything, yet the insurers and TPA's constantly try.

Anyway this isn't about the length or size of repairs and if you think it is or want us to think it is, you're missing the point or trying to get everyone else to miss the point.

The point is, you conform to their rules or you're out in the cold, simple as that. And that is the problem we all have.

Personally I have read up a lot on the Lanham act, and I would say that it is far reaching to think that he is going to be able to do anything but make a lot of noise with that. You have to have a hell of a lot more evidence to win based on this law. I know this because I have been there done that..

You have to be pretty **** blaitant to get any rewards, and if the Judge felt this was really a threat they would issue a TRO..

If he can show that consumers have been harmed, he will win. Let's see. Repairs which are mitigation cost consumers $0. Replacements require the the payment of a deductible. Safelite definitely has an insentive to push replacements which cost consumers more.

6" is not the standard, yet Safelite says it is.

I disagree, you have to be proven to try to deceive customers, lets see this go to a jury trial, it will never make it there. The reason his crack repair business is in the decline, is that the price of glass has had a major decline over the past years.

Campfield also notes that repair costs less for customers than replacement. With replacement, customers often must meet their insurance deductible which is at least $500.

Also who is paying a $500 deductible for a windshield? A person with a Lambo? I would argue that most people actually paying that high of a deductible are not having a windshield replacement done.

I find the statement “Nothing can duplicate the factory seal of an original installed windshield since it is sealed with a symmetrical bead of urethane into a vehicle’s frame pursuant to an automated machine process under strict quality control conditions, including indoor temperature, humidity and cleanliness regulation—all of which greatly reduces the number of human and environmental variables that can detrimentally impact the quality of the installation,” alleges the court documents. “If a windshield is not installed under robotically climate controlled factory conditions, human error can cause any number of potentially fatal windshield failure scenarios (e.g., by materially altering torsional rigidity, air bag crash pulse, installation stress, and roof support).” This is a false statement, I strongly disagree. How about all the people running around with a Taurus with a windshield with bad primer on it, really good seal there.

As a Replacement / Repair shop I am disgusted by things like this, you should never have to lie to a customer to get the work, and by his false statements about windshield replacement cause damage to legit Auto Glass Replacement shops!

LD&Screwem, Your prejudice is showing. Do you honestly believe that Aftermarket windshields are comparable to original factory installed windshields? Do you really think that mobile installations or inshop installations come anywhere close to factory installations? It is true that once in a while factory installations are defective and recalls occur but at least the recalls get original equipment.

Check out this thread

http://pub24.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2036554146&frmid=6&msgid=950933&cmd=show

Just because a reverse engineered windshield meets National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Standards doesn't mean that it is comparable to original equipment windshields or that they will function as well as original equipment windshields. Even economy model vehicles, such as the Ford Fiesta, that respond to voice commands use acoustic windshields that are quieter than their aftermarket NHTSA sanctioned counterparts.

Most of the time deception occurs without telling outright lies. Think about it. Failure to fully disclose to your customers all of your knowledge so that they can make an informed decision is a form of deception.

Do you explain to each of your customers the benefits of repair vs replacement?
Do you advise them that if they select repair, they may not have any out of pocket expense (whether it is a small chip or even a 14" crack)? If not, who is deceiving whom?

Do you explain the difference between OE and OEE? Do you mention that even if AGRSS guidelines are followed to a T, that air leaks and/or water leaks can still occur in a replacement situation? If not, is that not deception by omission?

Richard's case definitely has merit, or he would not be represented by three different law firms.

This statement has no merit. Law firms don't necessarily take cases they will win because they may want press, etc. If Rich has put up a retainer, why not give it a shot? Next.

Davey --

your statement "Just because a reverse engineered windshield meets National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Standards doesn't mean that it is comparable to original equipment windshields or that they will function as well as original equipment windshields." is true, but...........

It also doesn't mean that they are NOT comparable to OE windshields in performance.

Remember, the car manufacturers do not make the glass. If they did, there might be a difference, but in many cases the only real difference is the car manufacturer name on the stencil and the cost of the glass. Remember, I said MANY not all ( some windshields have terrible quality)

Dear LIGG,

In your professional opinion, do you feel that aftermarket auto glass is comparable to the original factory installed windshield? In my opinion, it is usually not.

I was sued under this law, and did you see the person the sued winning? You have to have all kinds of things in play. you just have no clue, you waste few hudred thousand defending yourself from BS you become pretty good at the law when it pertains to you.