In the state of Arizona, Republican Representative Nancy McLain introduced a bill entitled HB 2463: Auto Glass Repair; Fraudulent Practices. Within the legislation, McLain and seven other Arizona representatives outline unlawful practices that protect the auto glass consumer and the insurance companies. The bill begins by stating it is illegal for a person who sells or repairs automobile glass to submit a false claim to the insurer. For example, this person cannot knowingly submit a claim for work that is not needed – if the customer only needs a small glass repair, the claim should not be submitted for full replacement glass.
This is especially important in regard to windshields. The bill prohibits a glass seller or repairer to add damage to the glass in order to receive more money from the insurance company for a windshield repair or any other type of reparation. Also, the person cannot encourage, advise or instruct the policyholder to add further damage to the glass themselves. The person also cannot tell the policyholder that the repair or replacement glass will be entirely paid for by the insurance company. This person is merely a middleman and not a representative of the insurance company, thus cannot speak on its behalf. The only time this is legal is when, “the person making the statement is employed by or is a producer contracted with the policyholder’s insurer.”
Thus, for a windshield or other kinds of auto glass, the state of Arizona protects all their citizens against auto glass repair fraud. If you live in Arizona or anywhere else in the US and need your auto glass repaired, be assured that TeleGlass works with your insurance company and explains the entire process to you. Please contact us at TeleGlass.com for more information.
Photo credit: Used by CC, photo by PhillipC on Flickr. See page for details.
Read more from Blog Admin.
The Blog Administrator of Seeing Clearly. More of a collective intelligence than an actual person, the personification of a company that facilitates twentyfive thousand glass repairs every year. Find TeleGlass on Twitpic or on Twitter: @TeleGlass.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Here’s the bill if anyone wants to read it.
This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is a gag order on Arizona glass shops. It appears from the tone of your post that you may not be concerned about your own company competing against the largest TPA in the world. That’s great that you don’t have the same concerns as the other small to midsize TPA’s. Do you really believe this bill is about “protecting the consumer”? Doesn’t your business model depend on the success of the independent glass shop?
Ben,
Stopping fraudulent claims is hardly a gag order on Arizona Glass Shops.
You are 100% correct that we are not concerned with this bill as ensuring all claims are filed in an ethical manner is well aligned with our company’s core values. If you read this bill you will see that it basically says you can’t lie about the facts on a glass claim or damage the glass further, something we expect from all glass companies. I would hope most independent glass companies don’t submit fraudulent claims, and in my opinion this bill will only harm those who cannot do an honest business. Our business model does go hand in hand with the independent glass shops, however, only those independent glass companies who are well respected, follow established safety standards, bill at reasonable rates, billing for parts that are not needed, or attempting to submit claims behind an unknowing consumer’s back.
Although this bill is written as a consumer protection bill, it’s a direct attack on the auto glass industry and is written to benefit the insurance companies. It drives a wedge in between the consumer, and their shop of choice. It is already against the law in every state to commit insurance fraud.
The details of this bill prevents the “honest” discussion between the glass shops and their customer and interferes with legitimate working relationships and may well promote the use of inferior products or parts to the uninformed consumer.
Does the insurance company really need to take over the legal rights of the insured?
This bill allows the insurance industry to pursue their own agendas instead of what is actually in the insureds best interest.
Who is better qualified to determine what level of work is necessary other than the glass shop which will be banned for discussing it?
I for one would not feel comfortable ignoring my own judgment on the installation of a vehicles safety device by advising customers to abide by their insurance companies standards, but would be forced to do so to avoid penalties.
If this were the case, wouldn’t the insurance company have to actually contract for the repair?
Clearly this bill is targeted specifically at a very small segment of the auto repair industry; auto glass. The original post was to simply discuss the bill, not to pass judgment. I think it deserves a deeper dive; we’ll continue the analysis in a future post.
Ben – thanks for your passion in serving your customers. We’ll continue the conversation soon!
Great idea, but will this work over the long run?
This bill pertains to your BJ and Danny’s car wash scams. Yoy bring your car in to get a wash, the guy comes over and wipes your glass and checks to see if you want your cracks repaired. These are the ones causing these problems. I no longer go to these car washes as I almost ogt in a fight with the guys over not wanting my glass fixed. Blame those fools!
Frank, I think you’re right. In the industry, this practice is called harvesting, and a few bad apples seem to have spoiled quite a bit for the rest. The practicioners can be very aggressive, and it makes for an usavory experience for almost everyone.
Besides, there’s no such thing as a “free repair.” A repair that is covered by your insurance if you file a claim? Yes! But that’s not the same as free.
Re: Arizona House Seeks Auto Glass Legislation
Who added this?
“”It is unlawful for a person who sells or repairs auto glass to intentionally misrepresent the relationship of the glass repair facility to the policyholder’s insurer. For the purposes of determining whether a person intended the misrepresentation, it may be presumed that the person intended the misrepresentation if the person was engaged in a regular and consistent pattern of misrepresentation.”"
This is twisted at the onset.
First, the words “It is unlawful for a person who sells or repairs auto glass to intentionally misrepresent…” are targeted at repairers not at the networks. Black and white.
Second, Safelite Solutions is not in the business of selling or repairing auto glass, they are in the claims processing business, and will not hesitate a second to explain that to any regulatory entity.
Third, if any shop is educating its customers about right to choose, or other items, that could easily be seen as interpreting the coverage of an insurance policy, which I doubt any shop is licensed to do, this language could easily be used against a shop in several ways that I can think of.
Fourth, it could easily be interpreted that this language not only allows, but may actually REQUIRE a network to explain to a customer that a shop not on thier network isn’t on thier network. The language states: “…to intentionally misrepresent the relationship of the glass repair facility to the policyholder’s insurer.”
What relationship is there between the glass repair facility and the insurer?
Ya THINK that MABEY this could be used against honest shops?
Of course, this will bring out the “if you aren’t doing anything WRONG you have no reason to object to this language” folks.
I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard insurers object to proposed laws using the “we don’t DO of the things this law describes, so there’s no reason for the legislature to waste the time on it.”
Nice folks, being so considerate of the legislature’s time like that.
Anyway, “ANTI STEERING LANGUAGE”?? Yes, it sure is, but not aimed at the networks or insurers.
So…..Who wrote this?
(Apologies for grammatical, content, and spelling errors today, I had little time and shot from the hip.)
JMHNLO
All of this is a bunch of BS.
If the customer has a chip in the windshield and does not want to repair it . They have the right to REPLACE IT. Why is everone paying for glass coverage? I agree on some stuff. Trying to crack down on Fraud , But saflite solutions takes Most of the claims NOT the insurance company and lynx services thats the main problem . If the insurance companys would like to save money on claims maybe the should be smart after 100million in glass claims. What most poeple dont understand is there is ALOT of Broken windows in Arizona . If the state would step up and clean the roads more then there would be so much of a problem
Nate,
I hope this doesn’t get misinterpreted, but I do not agree that the customer has the right to a new piece of glass every time. The customer has a right to having his or her vehicle restored to its previous condition. If a chip repair does that, then that’s what is warranted. Only when a new piece of glass is needed does the customer has right to a new windshield.
This is no different than other types of property insurance coverage.
Consider an auto body repair. If I get a dent in my door, and the dent can be safely pushed out, filled in, sanded, and painted so my car looks and functions as new, my insurance company will not pay for a brand new door. They will pay for the repair, and save about $1,500. If, on the other hand, the interior structure of the door is compromised, and it is no longer as strong and won’t protect me in the event of a side impact, then they will pay for a whole new door.
I say this from experience. When my Volvo’s door was hit in a parking lot, it had to be replaced, and it wasn’t cheap. The initial estimate was less than $1,000 to repair the door, but when the interior panel came off, it was clear that the side impact bars had been damaged, and the whole door had to be replaced. The final bill was about $3,000.
It’s the same thing with a chip. If it can be safely repaired, it will be. If it cannot be safely repaired, then we replace the windshield.
As an purchaser of insurance, that’s how I want it to be. I’m not buying glass coverage so my windshield can be replaced if it gets a small chip. I’m buying glass coverage so my vehicle can be returned to its previous condition.
If every chip results in a replacement, my premiums will go up.
I want my insurance company to take care of me, but I also don’t want them wasting their money on an unnecessary replacement. At the end of the day, the insurance company will not lose money, either way. They pass the costs on to me. They pass the costs on to you, too. Who pays? The consumer / driver / policy holder. Any repair facility that creates an invoice that is higher than necessary on an insurance claim might initially impact the insurance company, but at the end of the day, it’s the customer that pays in the form of higher premiums.
I agree, the guys at the car washes that always tell me I need to get my glass fixed even though I had recently had it fixed are annoying. I had gotten a new windshield and 2 weeks later the guy at the wash said it looked pretty beaten up and I would need it repaired. haha. I am in favor to have these scams stopped.