The auto glass repair and replacement industry has evolved into an industry based on suspicions and ulterior motives. This is evident from the recent statistics offered to the industry on a dramatic rise in questionable claims by the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) and the latest “Windshield Bullies” campaign. Just imagine what perspective you would have if you heard such a phrase like that from some other service industry. Is there any one of you among us that would be willing to label that professionalism?
Unfortunately, we should not behave as though we are players in a chess game trying to out-strategize one and other. But in reality, we are. We are serving the public and, due to the fact that we are service providers in a service industry, we must all do better. Naturally, every single one of us is in business to profit financially. But, professionalism on all fronts should be the guiding beacon. Can any one of us boast that we are satisfied about the situation to which we have transitioned to as an industry? To me, it is a professional embarrassment.
The other night, there was an article on glassBYTEs.com™ that reported that one insurer was evaluating its decision to continue its windshield inspection program performed by technicians of a major auto glass service provider. The article included that service provider’s reaction to accusations that it is using the inspection process to steer claims. Would any one of us expect that the response would be anything other than “we are the best?” Would any one of us expect that the spokesperson would admit to steering or that technicians show up to inspect a windshield with the proper replacement part already in the van?
I read the comments regarding the steering concerns and I question why the insurance company would not prefer to hear directly from their policyholders. It does not make any sense to me that the insurer would publicly acknowledge the response from the company performing the inspections. It does not occur to me that any party would take the word of an intermediary between themselves and their customers as gospel. From the calls that I take from the field, I know that the situation is not what these representatives say. However, as mentioned, we would expect no different. I don’t hear that all is rosy in the inspection process. To the contrary, I hear of delays and stolen claims. So whatever outcome the insurer expects the inspection program to achieve may not be consistent with providing their policyholders with the best customer service.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I cannot imagine any insurance company, if knowing how their customers are being treated at the hands of some third-party administrators who serve two masters would allow it to continue. Folks, common sense says that it cannot be done. Insurers, listen to your customers.
The challenge before each and every one of us, including insurers, third-party administrators, suppliers and service providers, is to clean up this mess and make customer service the priority while ensuring the proper and safe replacement of windshields in the process. After all, isn’t that what a service industry should be all about?
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
IGA Sets Sights on a Stevie Award for Promoting Customer Service
For the past few weeks, I have been writing on the woeful customer service in the auto glass repair and replacement industry—an industry that should be all about customer service. As an industry, we know that customer service is not anywhere near the level that it should be. Special interests with close ties to the insurance companies have an agenda to entice policyholders to use service providers that are “insurer-friendly.” However, we can all agree that not every service provider that is “insurer-friendly” is necessarily concerned with the interests of the consumer, especially their safety. Not only is the customer used as a rope in this tug of war, but some third-party administrator CSRs have no reservations about being confrontational with a shop while the customer is on the line.
To any of you that may know me or follow my rants, I have always said that it is the consumers who are being short-changed in this industry. I have always believed in the “customer-first” philosophy and that the rest will fall into place. The consumers are used as pawns in a process in which insurance companies are more concerned about trying to glorify their income statements than honoring the contract they executed with their policyholders. Insurance products sold as indemnification policies are treated more like HMO policies. I think the ongoing battle between shops and insurers is simply a by-product of shop operators fighting for their right to service customers without the presence of external interference. I remind you of the phrase that has become very popular in the auto glass industry: who is the customer?
The question of the century is: where will this all end? The Independent Glass Association’s (IGA) recent announcement pertaining to the development of technology standards is an initiative that should be embraced by the industry. The industry now has before it the best opportunity to unite and endorse the use of state-of-the-art technology in the insurance claims process, which has become fossilized and no longer promotes anyone’s objectives.
Recently, a major industry company won a Stevie Award for the best use of technology in customer service and was cited for the capability of its mobile technician technology. From what I have witnessed in the early stages of the IGA’s initiative, the technological capabilities available will reach far beyond e-mailing the customer an appointment confirmation and a technician’s picture and biography.
We have tremendous opportunity before us. The industry has the opportunity to place the Stevie Award in the hands of those who will truly restore customer service to the priority that it deserves. The question remains as to whether or not the industry will embrace it. The question remains as to whether or not the industry will embrace the technology that will put the Stevie Award for customer service where it rightfully belongs; in the possession of those who truly are concerned with servicing their customers.
To any of you that may know me or follow my rants, I have always said that it is the consumers who are being short-changed in this industry. I have always believed in the “customer-first” philosophy and that the rest will fall into place. The consumers are used as pawns in a process in which insurance companies are more concerned about trying to glorify their income statements than honoring the contract they executed with their policyholders. Insurance products sold as indemnification policies are treated more like HMO policies. I think the ongoing battle between shops and insurers is simply a by-product of shop operators fighting for their right to service customers without the presence of external interference. I remind you of the phrase that has become very popular in the auto glass industry: who is the customer?
The question of the century is: where will this all end? The Independent Glass Association’s (IGA) recent announcement pertaining to the development of technology standards is an initiative that should be embraced by the industry. The industry now has before it the best opportunity to unite and endorse the use of state-of-the-art technology in the insurance claims process, which has become fossilized and no longer promotes anyone’s objectives.
Recently, a major industry company won a Stevie Award for the best use of technology in customer service and was cited for the capability of its mobile technician technology. From what I have witnessed in the early stages of the IGA’s initiative, the technological capabilities available will reach far beyond e-mailing the customer an appointment confirmation and a technician’s picture and biography.
We have tremendous opportunity before us. The industry has the opportunity to place the Stevie Award in the hands of those who will truly restore customer service to the priority that it deserves. The question remains as to whether or not the industry will embrace it. The question remains as to whether or not the industry will embrace the technology that will put the Stevie Award for customer service where it rightfully belongs; in the possession of those who truly are concerned with servicing their customers.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Customer Service is the Priority—Maybe in Other Industries
Has anyone given much thought to how the CEOs of insurance companies would react if they knew how their policyholders were being treated at the hands of some third-party administrators (TPA)? As a former employee of a glass shop, I witnessed some extremely poor treatment of customers at the hands of the customer service representatives. In a service industry, I would expect such treatment would be unacceptable at any link in the customer service chain. I would find it hard to believe that insurers would tolerate such treatment of their policyholders to save $20 on a glass claim. However, in the auto glass repair and replacement industry, the poor treatment of consumers at the hands of some third-party administrators is the rule and not the exception.
For starters, I remember being placed on hold, sometimes in excess of twenty minutes, while the customer service representative “educated” the customer on why they should not bring their car to our shop. The treatment was especially harsh when the customer was reporting the first notice of loss in our shop’s lobby. These calls always ended with a bewildered look and, in many cases, just plain anger. Fortunately, with the in-shop calls, we always retained the customer.
So we shall return to the question at hand. Why would CEOs of insurance companies allow their customers to be subjected to such abuse? Is it truly that they do not care? I doubt it. But I have not had the opportunity to ask them. It has always been my understanding that securing a new policyholder is costly. It has always been my understanding that an insurer must also retain that insured for a period of years to make that policy profitable. So again, assuming that this is true, why would insurance companies place the retention of a policyholder at risk for a few dollars?
In this industry, customer service should be priority number one. But it is not. The point of contact between the shop’s customer and the TPA is not the only point of contention. With the introduction of the “windshield bullies” nonsense (which I maintain that in and of itself a fraud) and the call by some insurers for inspections of windshields, the opportunity for consumers to get their automobiles properly and timely serviced has become even more problematic. More and more, I am taking calls that tell me that the inspections are taking an inordinate amount of time. The service that all of us provide to the consumer should be made as convenient as possible from the reporting of the claim to, at a minimum, the point where the consumer has been serviced and on their way.
Will there be any improvements in this industry in the area of customer service, especially as it appears that more and more, the insurers are dancing to the tunes of the TPAs and not vice versa? Recently, the Independent Glass Association announced the initiative to develop technology standards in the industry to improve customer service. It is believed that through the integration of state-of-the-art technology into the insurance claims process, customer service will be restored to the priority that it well deserves. After all, this is a service industry. Hopefully this should alleviate any concerns by consumers that the shop of choice is the culprit in the process. From experience, I know that many times the shop at which I was employed was viewed by the consumer as the weak link in the chain because, after all, our customers believed that all of the time, they were communicating directly with their insurance companies.
For starters, I remember being placed on hold, sometimes in excess of twenty minutes, while the customer service representative “educated” the customer on why they should not bring their car to our shop. The treatment was especially harsh when the customer was reporting the first notice of loss in our shop’s lobby. These calls always ended with a bewildered look and, in many cases, just plain anger. Fortunately, with the in-shop calls, we always retained the customer.
So we shall return to the question at hand. Why would CEOs of insurance companies allow their customers to be subjected to such abuse? Is it truly that they do not care? I doubt it. But I have not had the opportunity to ask them. It has always been my understanding that securing a new policyholder is costly. It has always been my understanding that an insurer must also retain that insured for a period of years to make that policy profitable. So again, assuming that this is true, why would insurance companies place the retention of a policyholder at risk for a few dollars?
In this industry, customer service should be priority number one. But it is not. The point of contact between the shop’s customer and the TPA is not the only point of contention. With the introduction of the “windshield bullies” nonsense (which I maintain that in and of itself a fraud) and the call by some insurers for inspections of windshields, the opportunity for consumers to get their automobiles properly and timely serviced has become even more problematic. More and more, I am taking calls that tell me that the inspections are taking an inordinate amount of time. The service that all of us provide to the consumer should be made as convenient as possible from the reporting of the claim to, at a minimum, the point where the consumer has been serviced and on their way.
Will there be any improvements in this industry in the area of customer service, especially as it appears that more and more, the insurers are dancing to the tunes of the TPAs and not vice versa? Recently, the Independent Glass Association announced the initiative to develop technology standards in the industry to improve customer service. It is believed that through the integration of state-of-the-art technology into the insurance claims process, customer service will be restored to the priority that it well deserves. After all, this is a service industry. Hopefully this should alleviate any concerns by consumers that the shop of choice is the culprit in the process. From experience, I know that many times the shop at which I was employed was viewed by the consumer as the weak link in the chain because, after all, our customers believed that all of the time, they were communicating directly with their insurance companies.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Will Customer Service Ever Become a Priority in this Service Industry?
With each passing day, I become more and more amazed how insurance companies embrace the status quo (at least publicly), as their customers get abused and disrespected at the hands of some third-party administrators (TPAs). If insurers have not learned by now, let me remind them that any TPA with a conflict cannot serve two masters. Only one master can be served and based on the calls that I field every day, it is not the insurance client that is the master being served.
One day last week, I received a call from a shop manager telling me that his customer had been waiting more than a week for a windshield inspection. The delay had the customer on edge. The customer was confused and extremely upset, and the shop manager could not appease him. I offered him several suggestions. The first was to make sure that he had the signed assignment of proceeds, which he did. The second was to have his customer contact the agent and advise him/her of the situation. The customer’s insurer was clearly not on his side, it seemed. Another suggestion that I had made was to have his customer contact the Department of Insurance and file a formal complaint.
Once again, I find myself challenging the real purpose of the inspection process. From the moment that these “inspections” were introduced, I proposed that inspections had nothing to do with fraud. Rather, I believe the inspection process is a fraud. Inspections are another attempt to steer claims. Why do I argue that the inspection process has nothing to do with fraud? Because all the while the customer is delayed in getting the inspection, he is pursued, in some cases with gimmicks, to have his vehicle serviced at another shop. If this was all about fraud prevention, the policyholder would simply have to wait for the inspection. And how do you justify a lengthy delay for a process that would take five minutes? This is all about making the process inconvenient for the customer, hoping he/she will turn to the insurer/TPA for advice. The bottom line is, if insurance companies were concerned with fraud prevention they would not employ the services of a TPA (aka the competition) to perform the inspection process. Can anyone say “credibility?”
When will insurance companies get it? (I think that they already do). Do they actually think that an arrangement to have a third-party service their customers will serve their best interests? They are so consumed with containing costs that they have allowed customer service to take a back seat. But then again, behind the scenes, are insurers truly happy with how this industry has evolved? Can they possibly be happy with the increase in claims that resulted from a media campaign that boasted “at no cost to you?” (By the way, what happened to those ads? I haven’t seen or heard one in a long time.)
Are insurers satisfied with the fact that everywhere you look, you can read about disgruntled claims or some other controversy? I cannot imagine that they are, but after thinking about it, they cannot go public with their displeasure either. After all, they are the ones that have cultivated this debacle.
On a closing note, I have always argued that the emphasis in this industry needs to focus on the customer. Does anyone remember the customer, the person that we are all in business to serve? It is the customer that is getting short-changed in this process. The customer is confronted with a claims reporting process that takes way too long, in some cases receiving a service from someone who is not qualified, having poor quality glass installed and not receiving the benefit promised in the insurance policy purchased.
Next week, members of the auto glass industry will be coming together in Scottsdale, Ariz., to draft a blueprint for the development of an ANSI technical standard. In my opinion, this will be a major step forward in restoring customer service to a service industry that has neglected the very party that we are all here to serve. Stay tuned; good things are on the horizon.
One day last week, I received a call from a shop manager telling me that his customer had been waiting more than a week for a windshield inspection. The delay had the customer on edge. The customer was confused and extremely upset, and the shop manager could not appease him. I offered him several suggestions. The first was to make sure that he had the signed assignment of proceeds, which he did. The second was to have his customer contact the agent and advise him/her of the situation. The customer’s insurer was clearly not on his side, it seemed. Another suggestion that I had made was to have his customer contact the Department of Insurance and file a formal complaint.
Once again, I find myself challenging the real purpose of the inspection process. From the moment that these “inspections” were introduced, I proposed that inspections had nothing to do with fraud. Rather, I believe the inspection process is a fraud. Inspections are another attempt to steer claims. Why do I argue that the inspection process has nothing to do with fraud? Because all the while the customer is delayed in getting the inspection, he is pursued, in some cases with gimmicks, to have his vehicle serviced at another shop. If this was all about fraud prevention, the policyholder would simply have to wait for the inspection. And how do you justify a lengthy delay for a process that would take five minutes? This is all about making the process inconvenient for the customer, hoping he/she will turn to the insurer/TPA for advice. The bottom line is, if insurance companies were concerned with fraud prevention they would not employ the services of a TPA (aka the competition) to perform the inspection process. Can anyone say “credibility?”
When will insurance companies get it? (I think that they already do). Do they actually think that an arrangement to have a third-party service their customers will serve their best interests? They are so consumed with containing costs that they have allowed customer service to take a back seat. But then again, behind the scenes, are insurers truly happy with how this industry has evolved? Can they possibly be happy with the increase in claims that resulted from a media campaign that boasted “at no cost to you?” (By the way, what happened to those ads? I haven’t seen or heard one in a long time.)
Are insurers satisfied with the fact that everywhere you look, you can read about disgruntled claims or some other controversy? I cannot imagine that they are, but after thinking about it, they cannot go public with their displeasure either. After all, they are the ones that have cultivated this debacle.
On a closing note, I have always argued that the emphasis in this industry needs to focus on the customer. Does anyone remember the customer, the person that we are all in business to serve? It is the customer that is getting short-changed in this process. The customer is confronted with a claims reporting process that takes way too long, in some cases receiving a service from someone who is not qualified, having poor quality glass installed and not receiving the benefit promised in the insurance policy purchased.
Next week, members of the auto glass industry will be coming together in Scottsdale, Ariz., to draft a blueprint for the development of an ANSI technical standard. In my opinion, this will be a major step forward in restoring customer service to a service industry that has neglected the very party that we are all here to serve. Stay tuned; good things are on the horizon.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Technology and TPAs: The Best Defense is a Good Offense
Recently, it was announced that there is an effort in place to introduce the concept of the development and implementation of technical standards to address the insurance claims process, thereby leveling the playing field. As noted in those same announcements, technical standards would support independently owned glass shops in their ability to launch an offensive against the blatant, anti-competitive tactics used by insurers and their third-party administrator (TPA) partners. TPAs are getting bolder and bolder in their determination to capture market share, steer work to preferred providers and contain costs. The recent announcement by USAA Insurance that it may require inspections using technicians, employed by the competition, and following the lead of GEICO Insurance, was the catalyst for this development. Thank you, USAA. Using the latest in technology, the industry will unite to stop this brazenness. Enough is definitely enough.
When I began my career in the auto glass repair and replacement industry, I could not believe that any third party, insurer or otherwise, could dictate the terms of what a business should charge for its services. To me, it should never matter who is paying the bill. I viewed this as no different than if a credit card company would have any control over what a business charged, because a customer was using credit as a means of payment. As the years passed, I watched in amazement as insurers, through their TPAs, assumed expanded dictatorial powers regarding the terms of doing business, including the parts that shops were to install (that is, if you were fortunate enough to retain your customer in the process). And, as evidenced by the introduction of inspections, performed by the competition, and under the mask of fraud prevention, they continue to attempt to expand those powers. It is time for independents to take a stand—and we will!
I maintain that any business should be able to charge as it sees fit, because market forces will eventually determine its fate. Any significant variance on pricing in a free market, whether higher or lower, will be the determining factor in whether a business is successful or not. Am I suggesting that shops should charge insurance companies significantly more than the price they charge customers paying cash? Absolutely not. But the desire of insurers to contain costs does not justify the antics that are being experienced in the AGRR industry today.
I believe that independents have been remiss in their failure to address the ongoing interference in their ability to conduct their businesses. But, as they say, it is never too late and the introduction of technical standards will present an opportunity to address the interference that insurers and their partners instill on independent businesses as they attempt to further control the market. The technology is available and independents will be far better off if they embrace these efforts. In my opinion, the expanded use of technology in the claims process can eliminate the need for TPAs altogether, making them a page in the history books. And I believe that by presenting insurance companies with the option, TPAs may just sail off into the sunset.
When I began my career in the auto glass repair and replacement industry, I could not believe that any third party, insurer or otherwise, could dictate the terms of what a business should charge for its services. To me, it should never matter who is paying the bill. I viewed this as no different than if a credit card company would have any control over what a business charged, because a customer was using credit as a means of payment. As the years passed, I watched in amazement as insurers, through their TPAs, assumed expanded dictatorial powers regarding the terms of doing business, including the parts that shops were to install (that is, if you were fortunate enough to retain your customer in the process). And, as evidenced by the introduction of inspections, performed by the competition, and under the mask of fraud prevention, they continue to attempt to expand those powers. It is time for independents to take a stand—and we will!
I maintain that any business should be able to charge as it sees fit, because market forces will eventually determine its fate. Any significant variance on pricing in a free market, whether higher or lower, will be the determining factor in whether a business is successful or not. Am I suggesting that shops should charge insurance companies significantly more than the price they charge customers paying cash? Absolutely not. But the desire of insurers to contain costs does not justify the antics that are being experienced in the AGRR industry today.
I believe that independents have been remiss in their failure to address the ongoing interference in their ability to conduct their businesses. But, as they say, it is never too late and the introduction of technical standards will present an opportunity to address the interference that insurers and their partners instill on independent businesses as they attempt to further control the market. The technology is available and independents will be far better off if they embrace these efforts. In my opinion, the expanded use of technology in the claims process can eliminate the need for TPAs altogether, making them a page in the history books. And I believe that by presenting insurance companies with the option, TPAs may just sail off into the sunset.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
“The Windshield Bullies”
Somebody, please stop those windshield bullies that are preying on the unsuspecting elderly, and, at all costs, stop them from using the glass shop of their choosing.
Recently, I learned that the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) was escalating its sensationalism regarding “windshield bullies” by airing 30- and 60-second commercials on auto glass fraud. The ads feature what appears to be the voice of an elderly woman who states that a company changed her windshield before she could call her insurance company. Can you imagine that she did not have the chance to call her insurance company? What third-party administrator would like that? Why they would not have the opportunity to “steal” that claim out from under that glass shop?
The woman featured in the ad did not think that she needed a new windshield. I would be curious to determine how the woman in the commercial arrived at that conclusion. It sounds like the woman sat at the gas station the entire time while the company went and retrieved the windshield and did an actual replacement. Was this in actuality a repair? Certainly she must have some evidence that there was wrongdoing to get these people arrested for fraud. Were they arrested and were they convicted? This entire ad appears to be suspicious and fabricated.
With bullying running rampant and these claims circumventing the third-party administrators (TPA), one would think that TPAs would want to do whatever they could to put an end to these tactics that apparently are the cause of a dramatic increase in “questionable” claims. However, since when has the duty of claims processing been expanded to include claims policing? Third-party administrators are not regulatory agencies. The Arizona legislation passed in the spring of 2010 was about tightening the claims reporting process, and not fraud. I contend that this ongoing reporting and windshield bullies campaign is about the claims reporting process, not fraud.
For at least the past two quarters, the NICB reported this dramatic increase in “questionable” claims. Just who is the source of the “questionable” claims that are being reported to the NICB? Is it the third party-administrators? I have addressed the sensationalism of the NICB press releases in the past. NICB president and CEO Joe Wehrle is quoted as saying that auto glass fraud is happening across the nation, but has produced no hard statistics or convictions. In addition, can a parallel be drawn to the fact that this “dramatic” increase in so-called “questionable” claims may be the result of a “claims harvesting” media blitz? The same media blitz that not one major insurance company has publicly denounced. The same media blitz that urged automobile owners to inspect their windshields for any defect that they may never have paid attention to in the past.
I believe the time is right for glass shops to run a counter-campaign by producing and airing commercials that are based on the following theme: Have you ever been on the end of a telephone line when a third-party administrator CSR will not accept the fact that you already have chosen a glass company to replace or repair your windshield?
The script read by the actor/actress could read: “I called the toll-free number on my insurance identification card to report my glass claim and, when I told the young lady that I wanted to use Joe’s Auto Glass, she was relentless and insisted that I would incur out-of-pocket expenses and that my windshield would not be guaranteed. After approximately 30 minutes on the line, I was able to make an appointment with Joe. The next day, a van was in my driveway that did not say Joe’s Auto Glass and, before I was aware of it, my windshield was replaced before I could stop it.” Here is a real customer who was bullied into using a shop that he/she did not choose in the first place. Since the inception of third-party administrators, there has been a “dramatic” increase in automobile owners being steered to shops they did not intend to use. We must put an end to this CSR bullying.
Insurers and the industry must accept that there are direct marketers that are selling windshield repair and replacement services to consumers that are legitimate and do not subscribe to fraudulent practices. The NICB should cease painting the industry with such a broad brush because one affiliated company, in particular, does not appreciate direct marketing. In the name of credibility, NICB CEO Wehrle should produce the number of convictions in his organization’s next quarterly report and insurers must end their silence on the “no cost to you” media blitz. Rather than dividing the industry, let’s work together to clean it up. No one condones fraud and many in the industry would want to work together to clean it up if it actually is as bad as portrayed. Mr. Wehrle, sensationalism must be left to the tabloids. I contend this issue is not about fraud at all. Rather, it is about exerting control over the claims reporting process.
Recently, I learned that the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) was escalating its sensationalism regarding “windshield bullies” by airing 30- and 60-second commercials on auto glass fraud. The ads feature what appears to be the voice of an elderly woman who states that a company changed her windshield before she could call her insurance company. Can you imagine that she did not have the chance to call her insurance company? What third-party administrator would like that? Why they would not have the opportunity to “steal” that claim out from under that glass shop?
The woman featured in the ad did not think that she needed a new windshield. I would be curious to determine how the woman in the commercial arrived at that conclusion. It sounds like the woman sat at the gas station the entire time while the company went and retrieved the windshield and did an actual replacement. Was this in actuality a repair? Certainly she must have some evidence that there was wrongdoing to get these people arrested for fraud. Were they arrested and were they convicted? This entire ad appears to be suspicious and fabricated.
With bullying running rampant and these claims circumventing the third-party administrators (TPA), one would think that TPAs would want to do whatever they could to put an end to these tactics that apparently are the cause of a dramatic increase in “questionable” claims. However, since when has the duty of claims processing been expanded to include claims policing? Third-party administrators are not regulatory agencies. The Arizona legislation passed in the spring of 2010 was about tightening the claims reporting process, and not fraud. I contend that this ongoing reporting and windshield bullies campaign is about the claims reporting process, not fraud.
For at least the past two quarters, the NICB reported this dramatic increase in “questionable” claims. Just who is the source of the “questionable” claims that are being reported to the NICB? Is it the third party-administrators? I have addressed the sensationalism of the NICB press releases in the past. NICB president and CEO Joe Wehrle is quoted as saying that auto glass fraud is happening across the nation, but has produced no hard statistics or convictions. In addition, can a parallel be drawn to the fact that this “dramatic” increase in so-called “questionable” claims may be the result of a “claims harvesting” media blitz? The same media blitz that not one major insurance company has publicly denounced. The same media blitz that urged automobile owners to inspect their windshields for any defect that they may never have paid attention to in the past.
I believe the time is right for glass shops to run a counter-campaign by producing and airing commercials that are based on the following theme: Have you ever been on the end of a telephone line when a third-party administrator CSR will not accept the fact that you already have chosen a glass company to replace or repair your windshield?
The script read by the actor/actress could read: “I called the toll-free number on my insurance identification card to report my glass claim and, when I told the young lady that I wanted to use Joe’s Auto Glass, she was relentless and insisted that I would incur out-of-pocket expenses and that my windshield would not be guaranteed. After approximately 30 minutes on the line, I was able to make an appointment with Joe. The next day, a van was in my driveway that did not say Joe’s Auto Glass and, before I was aware of it, my windshield was replaced before I could stop it.” Here is a real customer who was bullied into using a shop that he/she did not choose in the first place. Since the inception of third-party administrators, there has been a “dramatic” increase in automobile owners being steered to shops they did not intend to use. We must put an end to this CSR bullying.
Insurers and the industry must accept that there are direct marketers that are selling windshield repair and replacement services to consumers that are legitimate and do not subscribe to fraudulent practices. The NICB should cease painting the industry with such a broad brush because one affiliated company, in particular, does not appreciate direct marketing. In the name of credibility, NICB CEO Wehrle should produce the number of convictions in his organization’s next quarterly report and insurers must end their silence on the “no cost to you” media blitz. Rather than dividing the industry, let’s work together to clean it up. No one condones fraud and many in the industry would want to work together to clean it up if it actually is as bad as portrayed. Mr. Wehrle, sensationalism must be left to the tabloids. I contend this issue is not about fraud at all. Rather, it is about exerting control over the claims reporting process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)