With the zeal and passion that the repair industry has demonstrated in the past, I'd like to hear what is planned to do about this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040928/dctu011_1.html
Press Release Source: GEICO
Consumer Alert: GEICO Warns Consumers About Fraudulent Glass Repair Companies
Tuesday September 28, 8:58 am ET
SAN DIEGO, Sept. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- If your car windshield has any small glass chips or cracks, be careful about where you take it to be fixed.
GEICO's Regional Vice President Nancy Pierce in San Diego is alerting policyholders and consumers in the California area about fraudulent glass repair shops -- frequently set up in malls, county fairs, local car wash operations -- that are taking advantage of people.
Fraudulent glass companies often operate by doing improper repairs, causing cracks or chips to ultimately spread. This may necessitate the replacement of entire windshields and windows if repairs aren't done correctly.
GEICO considers these practices a form of fraud as policyholders turn in claims for inflated glass repairs by companies who knowingly make improper glass repairs. GEICO works with local police units to identify fraudulent glass repairers.
"We're particularly concerned about the potential safety hazard for our policyholders and for consumers," said Steve Rutzebeck, GEICO's director of claims security, Special Investigative Unit.
"We know that many of these fraudulent companies do not take the time to install the replacement glass properly. That's why we take fraudulent auto glass repair seriously and why we vigorously investigate questionable glass claims."
GEICO's policy is to repair small glass chips and cracks at no cost to policyholders with comprehensive coverage. In most cases GEICO will provide a free, safe, quality repair at the policyholder's home or workplace.
"We need to make sure that our customers are well educated on the practices of these shops," said Suzanne Worthen, GEICO's general manager for centralized services. "They should always contact their insurance company first before letting anyone repair their vehicle."
Policyholders should call GEICO at 1-800-510-2291 at the first sign of a chip or crack. GEICO will recommend a shop that does quality repairs. GEICO believes that a quality glass repair saves policyholders money and helps keep their cars safe to drive.
GEICO (Government Employees Insurance Company) is the fifth largest private passenger auto insurer in the United States. It provides auto insurance coverage for more than 5.6 million policyholders and insures more than 9.5 million vehicles. GEICO uses television, radio, print media and direct mail to attract customers to call its 1-800-841-3000 number and to visit its http://www.geico.com Web site, and keeps its rates low by dealing directly with the customer. GEICO offers sales and claim services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For more information, go to http://www.geico.com.
Source: GEICO
GEICO Warns Consumers About Fraudulent Glass Repair
-
mafsu
-
Lee
Skip this part?????????
GEICO's Regional Vice President Nancy Pierce in San Diego is alerting policyholders and consumers in the California area about fraudulent glass repair shops -- frequently set up in malls, county fairs, local car wash operations -- that are taking advantage of people.
Fraudulent glass companies often operate by doing improper repairs, causing cracks or chips to ultimately spread. This may necessitate the replacement of entire windshields and windows if repairs aren't done correctly.
GEICO's Regional Vice President Nancy Pierce in San Diego is alerting policyholders and consumers in the California area about fraudulent glass repair shops -- frequently set up in malls, county fairs, local car wash operations -- that are taking advantage of people.
Fraudulent glass companies often operate by doing improper repairs, causing cracks or chips to ultimately spread. This may necessitate the replacement of entire windshields and windows if repairs aren't done correctly.
-
scratchy
Rose colored glasses?
Awesome!! Probably 95% of Geico holders with chips on their windows have been procrastinating about getting them fixed (or even not knowing they are there). Now, if all this work is intentionally steered to you know who, we have a problem!
-
DaveC
It is kind of confusing as it starts out talking about fraudelent repair activities and then mentions unsafe replacements.
My "read" on this (and I could be wrong) is that GEICO acknowledges that many replacements are not done properly/are unsafe. Ergo, they are "pushing" repair when possible.
Naturally, as Scratchy mentions, guess who are the "preferred" repair shops;)?
My "read" on this (and I could be wrong) is that GEICO acknowledges that many replacements are not done properly/are unsafe. Ergo, they are "pushing" repair when possible.
Naturally, as Scratchy mentions, guess who are the "preferred" repair shops;)?
-
glassdoctor
- Senior Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: November 13th, 2003, 9:24 am
Yes, the whole article talks about repair with the exception of this one statement.
"We know that many of these fraudulent companies do not take the time to install the replacement glass properly. That's why we take fraudulent auto glass repair seriously and why we vigorously investigate questionable glass claims."
Seems out of context, unless they are implying that the "fraudulent" repair shops are also then doing hte replacement work when the repair fails.
That's the only way this statement makes any sense to me.
"We know that many of these fraudulent companies do not take the time to install the replacement glass properly. That's why we take fraudulent auto glass repair seriously and why we vigorously investigate questionable glass claims."
Seems out of context, unless they are implying that the "fraudulent" repair shops are also then doing hte replacement work when the repair fails.
That's the only way this statement makes any sense to me.
-
scratchy
Mobile on a motorcycle?
You know guys, this is just corporate flim flam. I am actually happy they are doing this. Imagine how messy things would get if this business turned into a fad at large with loads and loads of people jumping in trying to make a buck.
WSR is here to stay due to the simple fact that tooling and resin technology is now sooo good that near perfect results can be obtained regularly. WSR would not die if the insurance giants turned away from the repair option, which won't happen anyway.
The only thing that could damage the business is if laminated glass went away with the evolution of some other material. Not going to happen either.
WSR is here to stay due to the simple fact that tooling and resin technology is now sooo good that near perfect results can be obtained regularly. WSR would not die if the insurance giants turned away from the repair option, which won't happen anyway.
The only thing that could damage the business is if laminated glass went away with the evolution of some other material. Not going to happen either.
-
Porthos
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 28th, 2004, 8:47 pm
Ok, first I would wonder HOW they could have possibly gathered and correlated ANY data to substantiate the premise that fraudulent and poor repairs were leading to replacements.
Second, making the statements that they are, based on this completely questionable data, leading consumers to believe that the bulk of repairers that operated outside of bricks and mortar or thier recommended network, such as shopping malls and car washes, is quite outrageous. WHO did the inspections? Does Geico, or ANY insurer, for that matter, EVER do inspections to determine this? I sincerely doubt it.
Third, the insinuation that they will send the insured a shop that they have determined is "OK" is nearly insane: the only thing they ever check is if the shop is charging a rate within thier allowances, which they conveniently forget to tell the consuming public in the article, but again, heavily insinuate that anyone that dosen't accept thier terms of recommendation to the insured is conducting business fraudulently.
Fourth, the jump from repair issues to replacement issues, without batting an eyelash, is NOT coincidental. They are using the publicity given by the glass replacement industry about improper installations using short cut procedures and cheap materials and glass as a means to increase steering....again.....call them and they'll get you to a repairer who is "OK", when they haven't done squat to actually check out those providers in any way.
Finally, take a look at a bit different angle, from this story below, and ask if consumers are being told they have the right to choose under a full coverage policy, but are being sold an HMO type policy instead. I think you'll see the connection; the point is, this is a means to an end which is to ramp up steering, and scare the customer into allowing it, by giving the entire industry a black eye, and hold themselves out to be some sort of "police" that's there to protect them....when in reality they're only protecting their own bottom line, I think.
I agree with Repair1, this should raise some ire from the repairers, just as much as was raised with the moisture in the laminate issue. The question is....WILL IT? Why should any insurer be allowed to paint the entire industry with such a broad brush, when it's own back yard may be full of dog poop? Personally, I wonder if Geico actually wrote the press release, or mabey someone ELSE did?
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/984176.html
Insurance Overcharges Alleged
State Farm denies allegations
The Nebraska Supreme Court is being asked to allow thousands of people with State Farm insurance to join a lawsuit alleging the company overcharged for automobile policies.
The high court will hear a case September 9 stemming from a lawsuit filed by a group of policyholders alleging that State Farm, which has about 335,000 automobile policies in Nebraska, overcharged customers 15 percent to 20 percent for insurance.
"State Farm ... promised to be a `good neighbor,' meaning that it would treat policyholders with honesty, objectivity, loyalty, fidelity and good faith," wrote Christopher Jerram, one of the lawyers for the policyholders.
The lawsuit alleges that State Farm charged people for traditional indemnity medical coverage on their policies, meaning they could go to the doctor or hospital of their choice when seeking care after an injury and have their medical bills paid by State Farm.
The lawsuit alleges that State Farm had a scheme to instead provide "managed care" and denied all or part of claims that were submitted.
The policyholders accuse State Farm Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. of violating Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
State Farm denies the allegations.
The lawsuit is pending in Douglas County District Court.
A second group of policyholders, who paid for the insurance but have never filed claims, is asking the Supreme Court to let them join the lawsuit. They want to seek damages for the difference in the costs between managed care and the coverage they thought they were buying.
State Farm counters that policyholders wanting to join the lawsuit, led by John McGinn of Omaha, have no standing to enter the case.
"McGinn realized that he would be financially better off to have his premium returned," wrote Joseph Meusey, one of State Farm's lawyers in briefs filed with the high court. "Unfortunately, the law does not allow an insured to enter into an
insurance contract and then decide whether he would like a return of premiums later after failing to submit any claims.
"McGinn's damages rest on the speculation that, if he had submitted a claim in the future, State Farm would have denied it," Meusey wrote.
Jerram said that "State Farm, like any other corporation, is not immune from the Consumer Protection, Deceptive Trade Practices and other laws that protect Nebraskans from companies that cheat consumers."
State Farm is finishing up a settlement in a similar, class-action lawsuit in Washington.
The lawsuit accuses State Farm of using secret, unscientific reviews to deny personal injury protection claims.
In one case, lawyers for the policyholders say, a woman's car was rear-ended and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room, but State Farm decided most of her medical expenses were unreasonable.
In another, a man's medical expenses from a serious car accident after he had paid premiums for two decades were rejected in a "utilization review" after he refused to undergo a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the insurance company.
In 1998, a jury in Idaho awarded a policyholder nearly $103,000 in compensatory damages and $9.5 million in punitive damages for medical bills that were initially denied after a 1992 car crash. The judge in that case, rejecting State Farm's bid for a retrial or reduction in punitive damages, called the review process "a completely bogus operation."
Second, making the statements that they are, based on this completely questionable data, leading consumers to believe that the bulk of repairers that operated outside of bricks and mortar or thier recommended network, such as shopping malls and car washes, is quite outrageous. WHO did the inspections? Does Geico, or ANY insurer, for that matter, EVER do inspections to determine this? I sincerely doubt it.
Third, the insinuation that they will send the insured a shop that they have determined is "OK" is nearly insane: the only thing they ever check is if the shop is charging a rate within thier allowances, which they conveniently forget to tell the consuming public in the article, but again, heavily insinuate that anyone that dosen't accept thier terms of recommendation to the insured is conducting business fraudulently.
Fourth, the jump from repair issues to replacement issues, without batting an eyelash, is NOT coincidental. They are using the publicity given by the glass replacement industry about improper installations using short cut procedures and cheap materials and glass as a means to increase steering....again.....call them and they'll get you to a repairer who is "OK", when they haven't done squat to actually check out those providers in any way.
Finally, take a look at a bit different angle, from this story below, and ask if consumers are being told they have the right to choose under a full coverage policy, but are being sold an HMO type policy instead. I think you'll see the connection; the point is, this is a means to an end which is to ramp up steering, and scare the customer into allowing it, by giving the entire industry a black eye, and hold themselves out to be some sort of "police" that's there to protect them....when in reality they're only protecting their own bottom line, I think.
I agree with Repair1, this should raise some ire from the repairers, just as much as was raised with the moisture in the laminate issue. The question is....WILL IT? Why should any insurer be allowed to paint the entire industry with such a broad brush, when it's own back yard may be full of dog poop? Personally, I wonder if Geico actually wrote the press release, or mabey someone ELSE did?
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/984176.html
Insurance Overcharges Alleged
State Farm denies allegations
The Nebraska Supreme Court is being asked to allow thousands of people with State Farm insurance to join a lawsuit alleging the company overcharged for automobile policies.
The high court will hear a case September 9 stemming from a lawsuit filed by a group of policyholders alleging that State Farm, which has about 335,000 automobile policies in Nebraska, overcharged customers 15 percent to 20 percent for insurance.
"State Farm ... promised to be a `good neighbor,' meaning that it would treat policyholders with honesty, objectivity, loyalty, fidelity and good faith," wrote Christopher Jerram, one of the lawyers for the policyholders.
The lawsuit alleges that State Farm charged people for traditional indemnity medical coverage on their policies, meaning they could go to the doctor or hospital of their choice when seeking care after an injury and have their medical bills paid by State Farm.
The lawsuit alleges that State Farm had a scheme to instead provide "managed care" and denied all or part of claims that were submitted.
The policyholders accuse State Farm Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. of violating Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
State Farm denies the allegations.
The lawsuit is pending in Douglas County District Court.
A second group of policyholders, who paid for the insurance but have never filed claims, is asking the Supreme Court to let them join the lawsuit. They want to seek damages for the difference in the costs between managed care and the coverage they thought they were buying.
State Farm counters that policyholders wanting to join the lawsuit, led by John McGinn of Omaha, have no standing to enter the case.
"McGinn realized that he would be financially better off to have his premium returned," wrote Joseph Meusey, one of State Farm's lawyers in briefs filed with the high court. "Unfortunately, the law does not allow an insured to enter into an
insurance contract and then decide whether he would like a return of premiums later after failing to submit any claims.
"McGinn's damages rest on the speculation that, if he had submitted a claim in the future, State Farm would have denied it," Meusey wrote.
Jerram said that "State Farm, like any other corporation, is not immune from the Consumer Protection, Deceptive Trade Practices and other laws that protect Nebraskans from companies that cheat consumers."
State Farm is finishing up a settlement in a similar, class-action lawsuit in Washington.
The lawsuit accuses State Farm of using secret, unscientific reviews to deny personal injury protection claims.
In one case, lawyers for the policyholders say, a woman's car was rear-ended and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room, but State Farm decided most of her medical expenses were unreasonable.
In another, a man's medical expenses from a serious car accident after he had paid premiums for two decades were rejected in a "utilization review" after he refused to undergo a medical examination by a doctor chosen by the insurance company.
In 1998, a jury in Idaho awarded a policyholder nearly $103,000 in compensatory damages and $9.5 million in punitive damages for medical bills that were initially denied after a 1992 car crash. The judge in that case, rejecting State Farm's bid for a retrial or reduction in punitive damages, called the review process "a completely bogus operation."
-
Porthos
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 28th, 2004, 8:47 pm
TRAINING IN HOUSTON
Same press release, today from Geico Claims in Arizona, first time was California.
Where will it come from next time, and how many times?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041004/dcmd001_1.html
Consumer Alert: GEICO Warns Consumers About Fraudulent Glass Repair Companies
Monday October 4, 2:59 pm ET
TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- If your car windshield has any small glass chips or cracks, be careful about where you take it to be fixed.
Where will it come from next time, and how many times?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041004/dcmd001_1.html
Consumer Alert: GEICO Warns Consumers About Fraudulent Glass Repair Companies
Monday October 4, 2:59 pm ET
TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- If your car windshield has any small glass chips or cracks, be careful about where you take it to be fixed.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests