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.

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

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.

Ben – thanks for your passion in serving your customers. We’ll continue the conversation soon!

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.