Amended Arizona Anti-Steering, Inspection Bill
Passes Caucus Vote
March 2, 2011
An Arizona bill that could adapt the state's insurance code to include language
about auto glass inspections passed the state Senate's majority
and minority caucuses yesterday, and now will proceed to the committee
of the whole, and, after that, a third reading before the full state
Senate. The bill, sponsored by Sen. John McComish, contains several
provisions related to the industry, including one that would prohibit
insurers and third-party administrators (TPAs) from causing "a
delay in the inspection of a policyholder's auto glass condition
in the handling of a policyholder's claim regardless of which repair
facility the policyholder chooses."
Though the original bill contained a provision that would have
prohibited insurers and TPAS from having a financial interest in
auto glass replacement companies, that provision was removed by
the Banking and Insurance Committee, which voted
to pass the amended bill in February.
The committee also had voted to remove a provision in the bill
that would have required that, in the case of an auto glass inspection,
"the inspector must be a direct employee of the insurer or
an independent party who is unrelated and unaffiliated with any
glass repair facility."
The current language of the bill
allows TPAs to recommend a glass repair facility to a customer,
but requires when doing so, that they "inform the person of
the right prescribed
to choose any glass repair facility
for the repair of the loss relating to motor vehicle glass at the
same time as making the recommendation or providing information."
However, it prohibits independent adjusters, auto damage appraisers
or claims inspectors from making a glass shop recommendation.
In a recent interview, Sen. McComish had advised glassBYTEs.com/AGRR
magazine that the amendments to the original bill wording came from
work with both insurance company representatives and representatives
"After talking with the insurance people as well as Safelite
as well as those representing the independent installers, we decided
to soften the bill to provide a penalty for those that are steering,
as opposed to the original bill, which would alter the business
model for someone like Safelite," he said. "The revised
version of the amendment provides penalties for those that do the
steering, but doesn't affect Safelite's business model."
Do you think the bill is a positive one for the industry? Are
there any provisions you wish had remained in its language? Please
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
Subscribe to AGRR Magazine.