Posts Tagged legislation

The Future in the Automotive Aftermarket Industry

For me, listening to keynote speaker Tony Aquila, CEO of Solera Holdings, Inc. at Auto Glass Week in Baltimore was most interesting. He led Solera’s purchase of LYNX Services, GTS and GLAXIS from owners Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC and PPG Industries, Inc. earlier this year. Tony’s accomplishments are considerable, especially considering that he grew up sweeping floors working in his uncle’s body shop and he has a 9th grade education. You have to be incredibly impressed by the guy.

The “Strategic Focus” web page for the company states, “Solera is the world’s leading provider of software and services to the automobile insurance claims processing industry.” (Link to corporate history) Solera will certainly be changing the world of auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) with innovative software solutions that will simplify the claims handling process surrounding glass repair and replacement. The organization has the potential to affect the way all consumers and influencers ultimately buy AGRR products and services dramatically. Depending upon the vision and direction Solera heads automotive aftermarket parts and service providers, including the auto glass repair and replacement industry (along with the collision repair industry and parts distribution industry) could be in for some big changes. It’s all about taking out market inefficiencies and reducing costs associated with those inefficiencies.

Just look at the AGRR industry. To ensure that service level expectations of the consumer is ultimately met, any software program would need to have access to the real-time inventory level of any supplier or distributor warehouses in the area, the inventory levels of any AGRR shop or technician in the vicinity vying for repairs or replacements, along with the schedules of all technicians available to properly repair or replace the part.

Imagine when an auto glass replacement is required, if it would be possible for the software program to instantly search for the part determining which supplier(s), distributor(s) or AGRR shop(s) has (have) the part in stock; perhaps ranked by cost for the part while finding the best auto glass replacement technician suited to properly install the part; when and where the consumer wants it installed. With that capability you then have to start asking some questions like:

Once the software program has all of the information required to start processing an auto glass replacement, who or what company is directly buying and paying for the part(s) required?

It could be:

  1. The AGRR shop or technician facilitating the replacement or
  2. Maybe the customer’s insurance company or
  3. If it’s a cash job the consumer could pay.

Which of the three above pays for any part required is important to determine the all-in price to be paid for replacement parts, along with the price paid for required installation supplies and labor.

So which organization determines the pricing level for the various scenarios outlined above?

Who is buying and paying for the part and installation supplies required?

Who is paying for the technician to install the part?

Answers to these and many other questions will give you an idea as to where the industry could be heading. There will be changes coming and margins are probably going to change in the AGRR industry in the near future. And probably not for the better.

What is it you’re doing to be prepared for the future?

Just sayin’.

140707.safeisrisky

Courtesy of TomFishburne.com – Marketoonist.com©

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Hobson’s Choice (a Free Choice or No Choice at All?)

I recently read the argument that attorneys for Safelite Group Inc. (Safelite) made relating to Connecticut’s Public Act-13-67(c) (2) in a glassBYTEs.com article. They argued that,

“it puts appellants Safelite Group Inc. and Safelite Solutions to a Hobson’s choice….”

Hobson’s choice[1] refers to a businessman by the name of Thomas Hobson who ran a livery in Cambridge, England in the 1600’s. Hobson required that every rider asking to hire one of his horses to always take the horse nearest the door. If a patron didn’t want to use that particular horse no other horse could be used. A “take it or leave it” choice. As another source on the origins of the phrase states[2], “A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered.” I thought using “Hobson’s choice” in this particular instance an interesting one considering the origins of the term. More on that later.

This link to the summary of the act that was first introduced in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee of the Connecticut House and ultimately signed by the Governor of the State of Connecticut required that in the handling of any insurance auto glass claim in the State of Connecticut that:

“The act requires that a glass claims representative for an insurance company or its third-party claims administrator, in the initial contact with an insured about automotive glass repair services or glass products, tell the insured something substantially similar to: “You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know. ” By law, appraisals and estimates for physical damage claims written on behalf of insurers must have a written notice telling the insured that he or she has the right to choose the shop where the damage will be repaired (CGS § 38a-354).”

Fairly straightforward.

A public radio program called “A Way with Words” talked about Hobson’s choice on one of the program segments. One of the hosts of the radio program, Martha Barnette tells us:

“The phrase Hobson’s choice goes all the way back to 17th-century England. For 50 years, Thomas Hobson ran a stable near Cambridge University. There he rented horses to students. Old Man Hobson was extremely protective of those animals. He rented them out according to a strict rotating system. The most recently ridden horses he kept at the rear of the stable. The more rested ones he kept up front. That meant that when students came to get a horse, Hobson gave them the first one in line—that is, the most rested. He’d let them rent that horse, or none at all.”

Perhaps you see where I was thinking that Hobson’s choice was an interesting phrase for the attorneys to use in their argument. First, Public Act-13-67(c) (2) is a duly enacted Connecticut law so their client really doesn’t get a choice in deciding whether they wish to follow it or not. As is their right, they can dispute the law which is obviously why the company is filing the appeals to the act which provides Connecticut consumers a choice in what company repairs or replaces their damaged auto glass. It’s just that at his stable Hobson didn’t want the same horse(s) being used each time by his patrons. Hobson wanted his patrons to use only the horse(s) that he wanted them to use. You can understand why Hobson wanted to rotate his horses so that each got equal use. Safelite wants Connecticut consumers to only use the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) company that Safelite wants them to use. In this case it would appear that Safelite is Hobson.

By enacting Public Act-13-67(c) (2), the State of Connecticut took steps it deemed appropriate to protect consumer choice for residents of the state. There are any number of AGRR companies operating in the State of Connecticut for consumers to use when they sustain auto glass damage. So is it “A Matter of Self-Interest or Consumer Choice”? Isn’t it Safelite that is attempting to provide Connecticut consumers with a Hobson’s choice?

Just sayin’.

Take it or leave it

Another example of a Hobson’s choice would be from Henry Ford’s book titled My Life and Work and written in 1922 referencing options available for the Model T Ford.

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

 

[1] Merriam-Webster.com meaning of Hobson’s choice

[2] Wikipedia.org description of Hobson’s choice

Other sources:

http://www.glassbytes.com/documents/07302014SafeliteLettertoCourt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson’s_choice

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hobson’s%20choice

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Comments

Just Sayin’ Blog – Is it Time for Licensing?

I read an article relating to the Novus Super Session at the organization’s Annual Franchise Conference held last week in Tucson. A representative from one of the networks that operate in the automotive glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry in the United States attended the conference and discussed industry related issues and ideas. One of the issues discussed related to the responses to survey questions that the network had asked of some number of in-network shops that either are:

    1. required to bill through the network for the insurance or fleet work that these shops do for an insurance company that utilizes this network as an administrator or
    2. shops that are asked by the network to do work on the behalf of the network for an insurance company or fleet account that the network either can’t or doesn’t want their own company owned technicians to do for some reason.

The survey question that the representative said received the most comments related to unlicensed and/or unregistered AGRR shops. The network representative reported that when the survey responders were asked if they would support the regulation of auto glass shops in their states a resounding 74.2% responded with a yes. I think the question relating to regulation of auto glass shops an interesting one and I support the regulation of auto glass shops that do replacements.

When you consider all of the various “services” that are regulated by states, it is inconceivable to me that auto glass replacements (and other automotive repairers) are not. I looked on the web site of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (IDFPR) that oversees and licenses those considered “professionals” by the State of Illinois. There are 237 professions that are regulated by the IDFPR starting first with those who provide “Acupuncture” services. That seems like a profession that should be regulated. If you’re going to have someone perform acupuncture on you, would you want just anyone off the street be allowed to stick needles in you? Probably not. The listing ends with “Veterinary Technician”. The professional listings include some in the medical profession, but not every specialty is listed so if you add every regulated and/or licensed professional’s in the medical field to the list on the web site would be much longer. How does the state you live regulate those they consider professionals? Do you have 237 different professions regulated and/or licensed by your state?

I think it’s interesting that some of the professions that are regulated and/or licensed by the State of Illinois include:

Real Estate Appraiser                                             Athlete Agent

Cemetery Customer Service Employee                    Community Association Manager

Detection of Deception Trainee                                Nail Technician

Shorthand Reporter                                                Timeshare Resale Agent

Understanding that a few of the professions on the truncated list above taken from the IDFPR web site could, for instance, certainly cost you money if you had a bad appraisal via a Real Estate Appraiser, but in all likelihood none of these licensed and/or regulated professions are going to put your life at risk. A faulty windshield installation, on the other hand, could cost you and/or passengers riding in your vehicle serious injury or in a worst case scenario a life.

If you visit the AutoGlassSafetyCouncil.com or SafeWindshields.com site you’ll find a variety of information regarding the importance of windshields in auto glass safety. A question on the SafeWindshield.com site asks:

What role does my windshield play to ensure my safety in an accident?

The windshield provides a significant amount of strength to the structural support in the cabin of the vehicle. For instance, in a front end collision the windshield provides up to 45% of the structural integrity of the cabin of the vehicle and in a rollover, up to 60%.

There should be no dispute regarding the importance of a windshield in ensuring the safety of auto and truck passengers, asking that those who install your windshield to be licensed and/or regulated doesn’t seem unreasonable to me? If in the State of Illinois the state government feels that there is sufficient need to regulate and/or license Nail Technicians, Athletic Agents or Shorthand Reporters, wouldn’t you think that the same state legislature would take a look at various automotive repairs that if not done properly, could cost someone a serious injury or death?

The network representative at the Novus meeting was quoted as saying that for those that the network surveyed:

“By far, the largest problem was unlicensed/unregistered shops.”

You can certainly downplay the network that provided the survey results when asking the question “What was the largest problem in the AGRR industry?” (some might suggest the right answer to the question is the network providing the information is actually the largest problem in the AGRR industry), but is it time to consider the licensing and regulation of the AGRR industry considering the importance of the windshield to occupant safety? Perhaps that licensing or regulation could include adherence and verification of replacements to the Auto Glass Replacement Safety Standard®. That might be an unpopular position for some, but would it be so bad? As auto glass professionals what are we afraid of?

Just sayin’.

 

AGW 2014 Free Admission

Link to Free Admission Ticket to Auto Glass Week 2014

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Comments

Just Sayin’ Blog – Auto Glass Repair & Replacement Industry Legislation in South Carolina ***UPDATED***

 

I have been following with great interest the legislative initiative that has been taking place over the last two years in South Carolina. HB 4042 is attempting to lay out the rules of engagement for all stakeholders (consumers, auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) companies, third-party administrators (TPA) and insurers) of the AGRR industry in the state. Since HB 4042 was first introduced on April 6, 2011 in the South Carolina House and in the South Carolina Senate on May 24, 2011 the bill has gone through several versions. Now that the bill was passed in its final form by the General Assembly on June 6, 2012, it awaits Governor Nikki Haley’s signature to become law. If the governor signs the bill it will take effect on January 1, 2013.[1]  ***UPDATE*** On June 20, 2012 Governor Nikki Haley signed the bill into law.

The bill as passed is meant to:

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-31 SO AS TO MAKE IT AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE GLASS REPAIR BUSINESS THAT ADMINISTERS INSURANCE CLAIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE GLASS REPAIRS TO HAVE AN INSURED’S GLASS REPAIR BUSINESS REFERRED TO ITSELF OR TO USE INFORMATION TO SOLICIT BUSINESS.

Legislation typically requires compromise to reach agreement for passage and to be signed into law. The final version of the bill that was passed by the House and Senate chambers of South Carolina last week does just that. When stakeholders attempt to “improve” and influence legislation to provide their constituents their desired goals that they hope the legislation will achieve, legislation is generally weakened from the original version that was presented. That too happened. Is this bill a win win for everyone?

When you read through the bill and try to determine the sum of the parts, it appears that everyone got a little something. If you were a consumer you probably didn’t take any notice of the fight over this bill, but consumers did receive rights and protections to choose the provider they want to use if they file an auto glass loss with their insurance company. When a loss occurs many insured’s are looking for a recommendation as to what AGRR company they should use when they need a glass repair or replacement. If you’re a consumer insured by a direct writer (an insurance company that solicits and services business directly with the public through its own employees rather than through local agents[2]) and you have a glass loss you’re probably going to be directed to the AGRR company recommended by the TPA, even if it results in the TPA’s related AGRR company doing the work. Another positive section of HB 4042 is that when an insured makes a call to their insurance company claims department 1-800 number to report an auto glass loss; and the phone is answered by a TPA, the TPA that answers that call on behalf of the insurer must immediately tell the insured that the TPA is acting on behalf of the insurance company.

If you’re an AGRR company operating in South Carolina you certainly did receive some relief in the bill as there are restrictions on a TPA’s ability to attempt to steer your customer on a 3-way conference call. The bill does come with some reasonable restrictions as to the business practices that AGRR companies must follow when a consumer files a glass damage claim when insured in South Carolina. The bill has a number of important sections that restrict how an AGRR company markets to consumers who have insurance coverage for an AGRR loss. Some of the restrictions will place limits on the sales and marketing methods used by some AGRR companies who compete in South Carolina.

In the bill insurers received new mechanisms to protect its insured’s from those who attempt to improperly influence claims and the bill imposes penalties for those that are found using improper methods as defined by the bill. There is also language in the bill giving insurers the ability to pay only what is “fair and reasonable” for an AGRR claim and insurance companies may inform its insured that the insured could be responsible for paying any cost of an AGRR loss over what the insurer feels is a “fair and reasonable” price. There are additional provisions in the bill that would appear to benefit insurers regarding how auto glass losses are billed in South Carolina. I’ve detailed all of the provisions at the bottom of this blog post. Time will tell whether the insurers are happy with the final version of the bill.

TPA’s may refer an insured with a glass loss to any company that is a member of the TPA’s approved shops (including its own AGRR company) if the insured does not have a provider of choice at the time they file the claim. The TPA can require an inspection of damaged glass prior to replacement, but the inspector cannot refer or attempt to influence who the insured chooses to use for the repair or replacement during the inspection. If the insurer or TPA does not own a ten percent or greater ownership interest in an AGRR company the provisions of the bill do not apply. As with the insurers, TPA’s have a number of new rules that they must follow in the handling of auto glass claims for insured’s in South Carolina. Some TPA’s will have issues with this bill while others may not. A June 4, 2012 article in glassBYTE’s quotes a senior corporate counsel for Safelite as saying,

“We are very pleased with the compromise reached in the South Carolina Senate on HB 4042. We are hopeful that the House will concur and that it will be signed by Governor Haley,” says Brian DiMasi, senior corporate counsel for the company. “In the end, all parties came to the table and worked very hard to address their respective concerns. Safelite has always honored customer choice, and this compromise not only preserves that choice, but protects consumers by addressing the rampant fraud in the vehicle glass industry in South Carolina.”    

While many may have an opposing view to Mr. DiMasi’s comment regarding Safelite having “always honored customer choice”, I was surprised by what he said at the end of his comment where he stated that the bill “protects consumers by addressing the rampant fraud in the vehicle glass industry in South Carolina.” Rampant? Really? The bill certainly offers fraud protection for South Carolinians, but when you look up rampant in the dictionary you’ll find definitions such as “profusely widespread”, an “absence of restraint” and “growing wildly: growing strongly and to a very large size, or spreading uncontrollably”.

Does fraud exist in the AGRR industry? Does fraud exist in South Carolina? Certainly instances of fraud are committed by some in the AGRR industry, but rampant? I think that Mr. DiMasi’s statement is a grossly unfair characterization of the vast majority of AGRR companies that attempt to fairly compete in South Carolina by providing consumers who need auto glass repairs or replacements with excellent AGRR services at “fair and reasonable” prices.

I’m sure that one or more stakeholders see something in South Carolina HB 4042 that turns the advantage their way. With the passing of this bill in South Carolina the battle lines are drawn and there is a panoply of those interested in what’s next. Next year could bring another attempt in South Carolina to gain further advantage for one or more of the stakeholders, but the success that some see with the passing of this bill will help embolden legislative efforts to curb the activities of one or another stakeholder in other states.

Depending upon which side of this debate you support, all should give thoughtful consideration what it is you want. As the saying goes, “Be careful what you ask for,..” as to be sure there are always winners and losers in legislation passed into law and it’s possible that “…you might just get it”, but then again you might not get the outcome you were looking for.

Just sayin’……

126

___________________________

Additional information on HB 4042:

In its final version the legislation provides little wins for all stakeholders.

1.    Consumers get in the bill (or law if and/or when its signed):

a.    When filing an AGRR claim through their insurance policy the opportunity to choose who they want to do their AGRR claim and they can’t be required to use a particular provider. Both the insurance company and the TPA are covered under this provision.[3]

b.    Insured’s must be informed by the TPA that it is acting on behalf of the insurer and that the insured is not taking directly to their insurance company.[4]

c.    Once the insurer or TPA verifies coverage, both must find out if the insured has a preferred provider of choice for their AGRR claim.[5]

d.   If the insured’s provider of choice IS an approved vendor for the insurance company or TPA, the insurer or TPA must assign the claim and provide a claim number or reference number to the insured’s provider of choice.[6]

e.    If the insured’s provider of choice IS NOT an approved vendor for the insurance company or TPA, the insurer or TPA must confirm that the insured’s provider of choice will perform the required work at the insured’s rate of reimbursement for the work which is “fair and reasonable”. If the provider refuses the “fair and reasonable” reimbursement the insured may be told by the insurer or TPA that the insured is responsible for any amount over the reimbursement rate. The insured must be informed that they can use the provider of choice. The insured must not make statements about the warranty of provider of choice and refer any questions the insured may have regarding any warranty to the insured’s provider of choice.[7]

 

2.    AGRR companies get in the bill (or law if and/or when its signed):

The right to have an insured use them without interference if the customer chooses them as the provider of choice and they follow the rules laid out in the bill. The rules are:

a.    The AGRR company or anyone remotely associated with them must not:

                                          i.    Threaten, coerce or intimidate the insured into filing a claim;

                                        ii.    Engage in unfair or deceptive practices;

                                       iii.   Induce an insured to file a claim if the damage is insufficient to warrant a repair or replacement;

                                       iv.    Perform a repair or replacement for an insured without the approval of the insurance company;

                             v.   Suggest or represent that the windshield replacement could be free under the insured’s insurance policy or

                   vi. Market or advertise to consumers that could be insured’s who have an AGRR loss in virtually any way that their replacement could possibly be free under their insurance policy. [8]

b.    File a claim on behalf of an insured for a repair or replacement.[9]

c.    The insurer or TPA can require an inspection of the loss if they want by the representative of the TPA the representative cannot offer to repair or make suggestions as to who could do repairs during the inspection.[10]

d.    Violations of this section are subject to the provisions of the South Carolina Insurance Unfair Claim Practices Act.”[11]

e.    Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the insurer has the right to inform the insured that the insurer will not guarantee the work performed by a provider that is not in the network of the insurer or third party administrator.”[12]

 

3.    Insurers and TPA’s get in the bill (or law if and/or when its signed):

a.  When an insured does not request to have covered glass repair work performed by a specific provider of choice, the insurer or third party administrator may refer the repair to a vehicle glass repairer who is a member of the insurer’s or third party administrator’s preferred network of providers.”[13]

b.   Strictly limits who can file an insurance claim for an AGRR loss.[14]

c.   The insurer or TPA can require an inspection of the loss if they want by the representative of the TPA the representative cannot offer to repair or make suggestions as to who could do repairs during the inspection.[15]

d.    The provisions of this section do not apply to insurers or third party administrators who do not have a ten percent or greater ownership interest in a vehicle glass repair business.”[16]

e.   Violations of this section are subject to the provisions of the South Carolina Insurance Unfair Claim Practices Act.”[17]

f.    Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, the insurer has the right to inform the insured that the insurer will not guarantee the work performed by a provider that is not in the network of the insurer or third party administrator.”[18]

g.     It is an unlawful practice for anyone that sells, repairs or replaces vehicle glass to:[19]

                                          i.    submit a claim to either an insurer or a TPA if the glass was not damaged prior to the claim being submitted;

                                              ii.    if the services were not provide;

                                          iii.    use a location to bill for the repair or replacement other than the one that the repair or replacement was actually performed in an attempt to charge a higher price,

                                             iv.    have authorization from the insured to do the repair or replacement;

                                              v.    show any date other than the actual date of the repair or replacement or

                                            vi.    make any material misrepresentations related to the repair or replacement.

h.  An AGRR company cannot advise a policyholder to falsely the date of the damage done to a vehicle that needs a repair or replacement.[20]

i.  An AGRR company cannot falsely sign on behalf of the policyholder any document regarding the repair or replacement.[21]

j.  An AGRR company cannot intentionally misrepresent the cost to the policyholder for a repair or replacement or tell the policyholder that the insurance company or TPA has authorized a repair or replacement.[22]

k.   An AGRR company cannot represent to an insured that the repair or replacement will be paid entirely by the insured’s insurance company.[23]

l.     An AGRR company cannot do further damage to the glass that is to be repaired or replaced in order to increase the scope of the repair or replacement or encourage others to do further damage.[24]

m.  An AGRR company must repair or replace the damaged glass back to the pre-loss damage and use approved and customary AGRR techniques.[25]

n.    An AGRR company cannot offer rebates or something of value to the insured who files a glass claim.[26]

o.    An AGRR company cannot misrepresent their relationship with the insured’s insurance company.[27]


[1] SECTION 3. Section 1Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (E)”

[2] As defined by Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary

[3] SECTION 1.  Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(A)”

[4] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(B)”

[5] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(C)”

[6] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(D)”

[7] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(E)”

[8] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(G)”

[9] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(H)”

[10] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(I)”

[11] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(L)”

[12] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(M)”

[13] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(F)”

[14] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(H)”

[15] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(I)”

[16] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(K)”

[17] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(L)”

[18] SECTION 1. Chapter 57, Title 38 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding “Section 38‑57‑75.(M)”

[19] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (A)”

[20] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (B)”

[21] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (C)”

[22] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (D)”

[23] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (E)”

[24] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (F)”

[25] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (G)”

[26] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (H)”

[27] SECTION 2. Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: “Section 39‑5‑170. (I)”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Comments

Just Sayin Blog – Be Smart In 2012

There have certainly been a number of events happening since the first of the year that are effecting or may affect the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry in 2012. Where to start? Well let’s see:

 

1.    First the earth shook on January 2, 2012, when Safelite® Solutions officially took over the responsibilities for administrating Allstate® Insurance auto glass claims from PGW Lynxservices®. By all accounts Safelite® Solutions must be doing a masterful job in this new role administering claims for Allstate® as I’ve heard from a number of you that your auto glass claims from the second largest insurer in the United States are dramatically lower since the administrator change took place. Mild weather could also be a contributing factor. Adding to the pain of lost units, the pricing for those Allstate® replacements are also lower.

 

Have you seen your auto glass claims with Allstate decline since January 2, 2012?

 

2.    On January 6, 2012, glassBYTEs.com™ reported that Grey Mountain Partners Acquires Binswanger. Binswanger is a truly amazing full-service glass company with its roots going back to 1872 with its first location in Richmond, Virginia. It is certainly great news to hear for all of the Binswanger employees that they have a new owner who is interested in working with them to help build the company. I think that a strong Binswanger is healthy for the glass industry in the United States.

 

How about you?

 

3.    Neil Duffy recently announced in his very well written blog View From The Trenches that he’s considering a new career by starting a ‘new third-party glass claims administrator’. It sounds as though he’s thought it out pretty thoroughly by looking at all the pros of this new venture and I for one think he should go for it. I don’t see any cons.

 

What do you think?

 

4.    Then there is that anonymous letter from a ‘Concerned Citizen’ that surfaced yet again last week titled “New Anti-Trust Concerns”. This letter had a postmark from Bloomington, Illinois, and its resurfacing at this time might have some relationship to #1 above.

 

It does seem pretty obvious that the letter was written by someone in the auto glass industry as no one else would really care about the issue. The letter does raise a number of interesting points, but the conclusion of the ‘Concerned Citizen’ is that:

 

‘While the relationship between a TPA and its insurance company clients may not be illegal, the abuse of that position could be unfairly excluding independent competitors.’

 

There are a number AGRR initiatives taking place in various states where attempts are being made to try to restrict the big guy from taking your lunch money day in and day out. If one of them was successful it would certainly be good for independents in the industry.

 

Are there any legislative initiatives happening in your state that will be of any help to you in your business?

 

5.    For those of you who happen to follow @Safelite on Twitter you may have seen them sending out ‘Tweets’ asking for your input. One ‘Tweet’ poses a question to its followers and directs you to a web page survey question asking ‘How likely are you to recommend Safelite?’ Safelite® gives you the opportunity to answer with a ‘Not Likely’ – 0 score to an ‘Extremely Likely’ – 10 score.

 

I’m not sure to whom exactly Safelite® is targeting the question, but you’ve got to provide an email address in order to answer the question which is somewhat problematical. If you’d like to offer your view anonymously I guess you could use a fake email address.

 

I know what my number is in answer to the question. What number would you mark as your answer?

 

6.    And finally there was an article in the Chicago Tribune on January 18, 2012, reporting that the average age of vehicles in the United States has climbed to 10.8 years. The article stated that in 2010 the average age of vehicles was 10.6 years with the average age of vehicles having climbed steadily since 1995 when it was at 8.5 years. Over the past several years low new vehicle sales has certainly been a major factor in the increase in the average age, but with new car sales picking up new car manufacturers are expecting a great year in 2012. That will help to slow the growth in average age and hopefully bring it down. What does average age have to do with the AGRR industry?

 

One byproduct of an aging vehicle fleet is that you see an increasing number of the ‘do nothings’ (consumers that delay replacements) when auto glass breaks. Consumers obviously will be more accepting of a repair over replacement if the vehicle is older. New vehicles typically provide a higher average invoice value since the only replacement glass initially available to consumers will be auto glass manufactured for the vehicle by the Original Equipment Manufactured (OEM) glass company (i.e. Pilkington-NSG, PGW, Saint-Gobain Sekurit, etc.). The cost for non-OEM manufactures to reverse-engineer a replacement part for new vehicles is initially too expensive due to the low volume of parts needed in the aftermarket. The older the age of the vehicle fleet the more opportunities for non-OEM suppliers to sell reverse engineered replacement parts that are typically cheaper than the OEM’s. Ultimately that can mean less profit for the AGRR industry as a whole. New vehicle sales should mean more profit opportunities for those in the AGRR industry.

 

What do you think?

 

 

I hesitate to mention other things going on so far this year that may have an effect on your business like the lack of a severe winter in the East, the predictions for much higher gasoline prices later this year, a sputtering economy, the price changes that have taken place in the State Farm® Insurance Company auto glass program and various people coming and going from here to there. How you’re dealing with the variety of issues that you’ll face in 2012 will determine how you survive the year. Someone I’ve known for a long time in the industry commented to me last week that, ‘2012 is shaping up to be a watershed year for many in the industry. Survive this year and hope that next year will be a better one.’ That outlook makes sense to me. We’ll see if he’s right.

 

In closing, a former Princeton University men’s basketball coach by the name of Pete Carril wrote a book titled “The Smart Take from the Strong”. It’s a great book. Pete Carril was 5’6” tall, he was an All-State Pennsylvania high school basketball player, an Associated Press Little All-American in college and he coached at Princeton for 29 years before going on to the NBA to become an assistant coach for the Sacramento Kings. Coach Carril is also a member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. When he was young man his father told him:

 

            ‘The strong take from the weak, but the smart take from the strong.’

 

So be smart in 2012!

 

Just sayin’…….

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments