Supporters claim insurers responsible for shoddy, dangerous windshield installations

Mark Rizzi is best known in the glass installation industry where he’s made a name for himself collecting data on shoddy, potentially deadly windshield repairs. If supporters of a new anti-steering legislation in Nebraska have their way, Rizzi, owner of ACR Glass in Alliance, Neb., could become a central figure in their fight to curtail insurer influence over policyholders’ choice of collision repair shops.

State Sen. Ray Aguilar (R-Neb.) opened the 2004 session of the Nebraska Legislature by introducing Legislative Bill (LB) 849. The bill aims to curb steering by requiring insurers to make oral and written disclosures of policyholders’ rights to choose repair facilities. Aguilar decided the legislation was necessary after attending a presentation on steering conducted by Nebraska Autobody Association President Norbert Zaenglein and members Bob and Pat Hancock at the Hancock’s shop in Grand Island.

“What really convinced me to introduce this bill was the information on the dangers of poor windshield installation. If the windshield pops out when a vehicle rolls over, the passengers have no protection. They’re crushed,” Aguilar says.

Zaenglein and the Hancocks contend that insurers have contributed to this problem by steering policyholders into cut-rate glass shops that don’t use proper, safe installation procedures and by undercutting the glass market to the point where proper installations often are not available.

“My shop quit doing glass installations years ago because there was no profit left in it. Insurers weren’t willing to pay a fair price,” Bob says. “Now they won’t even pay for the best glass to protect people. For example, right now there are two grades of windshield glass. The good grade doesn’t get an insurer discount so insurance companies push the use of the lower grade which does.”

Hancock also points to evidence collected by Rizzi showing widespread negligence and poor-quality work throughout Nebraska’s auto glass installation industry. In particular, he notes records of 180 vehicles showing up at Rizzi’s shop with substandard, potentially dangerous repairs performed by other shops.

Hancock hopes that evidence will prove convincing enough to help make LB 849 law. A previous attempt by the Nebraska Autobody Association to push similar anti-steering measures through the state’s unique single-house (unicameral) legislature failed after legislators and opponents attacked the bill about its wording.

“This time we modeled our bill after a California law so the language won’t be a problem,” Hancock says. “Now we’re hoping the glass issue helps us make our case.”

For his part, Rizzi is happy to be a part of the association’s efforts. “I’ll do whatever I can to promote this bill,” he says.

“I have no problem with insurers wanting to control costs and wanting to avoid being gouged. But a line has to be drawn where cost control stops eating into quality and safety,” adds Rizzi. “Consumers should be receiving the best possible job.”

Jeff Kluender, a spokesperson for State Farm, contends that insurers do look out for policyholders needing glass repairs. “The work is warranteed,” he says. As for claims that insurers push customers into cut-rate shops, Kluender says, “We let customers know up front during the claims process that they have the right to choose shops. Customers make the decision.”

State Farm opposes LB 849 because it believes the legislation isn’t necessary. “We already notify customers. These issues are already being handled by the insurance commissioner,” Kluender says.

LB 849 would bar insurers from recommending shops unless the claimant asks for a referral and has already been informed, in writing, of the right to select repair shops. If the insurer makes an oral recommendation and the claimant accepts, the insurer must also read a statement, dictated by the state, reiterating the claimant’s right to select shops and right to have a vehicle restored to pre-accident condition. A written copy of the statement must then be mailed to the claimant within five days of the oral recommendation. Insurers also are barred from making recommendations after a claimant has selected a shop.

The focus on oral disclosure is there, explains Aguilar, because insurers had argued that written disclosure interferes with their ability to efficiently process claims.

“The technology in the insurance industry has advanced to the point where they can settle claims in a day. They claim written disclosures are too time consuming and slow down their systems. I don’t see the same problem with oral disclosures,” he says.

Kluender, however, believes the legislation will, in fact, slow down the claims process.

Because of the short legislative session facing LB 849, Aguilar has some doubts whether he can get the bill made into law during the coming months. If not, he plans to introduce it in the next session.