The California Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to pass as amended and re-refer the California Motor Vehicle Glass Act to the Committee on Appropriations. California Sen. Tim Grayson introduced Senate Bill (SB) 988 on Feb. 5 to regulate auto glass repair and replacement, focusing on claim handling, ADAS calibration and consumer disclosure.
According to Grayson, who spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, SB 988 requires shops to obtain a claim number from insurers before initiating work, mandates written notification regarding ADAS recalibration and prohibits the transfer of policy rights, or “assignment of benefits,” to repair shops.
“The bill aims to uphold best practices for the auto glass business,” says Grayson. “It’s not focused on regulating independent shops but rather aimed at protecting. It’s through the lens of consumer protection. We’re not trying to determine which glass company is more important than another.”
Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes says the opposition to SB 988 has more to do with the bias. Small shops argue that the bill gives more control to insurance companies and their preferred networks. Photo: David Herraez Calzada/Shutterstock.
Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, who was the only committee member to speak on the matter during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, notes the bill could shift leverage in the market, something that concerns glass shops.
“Their opposition goes beyond the claim number,” she says. “I think, eventually, every repair is going to have a claim number. Their opposition has more to do with the bias that this creates. They argue that this gives more control to insurance companies and their preferred networks. I will tell you honestly that the only commercial I hear about is Safelite. If Safelite becomes the preferred network for insurance companies, then the independent glass companies are not going to get their share of work assigned to them by the insurance companies that will have total control.”
Tom Tucker, vice president of legislative affairs of Safelite, was present at the hearing as a witness in support of the bill (the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies was also in attendance in support), argues that’s not the case. He says SB 988 would strengthen anti-steering laws. As for allegations that Safelite or other large companies would be steered toward consumers instead of small shops, Tucker states that Safelite honors preference.
The overall aim of the bill is to protect consumers, adds Grayson. He explains the current process misleads consumers. Glass shops often rely on an assignment of benefits arrangement that allows shops to bill insurers directly to get paid. He says that, while convenient, it leads to “poor outcomes for consumers, including inflated claims or overbilling.”
No opponents of SB 988 spoke during the hearing.
If Safelite honors preference and anti steering then why is their TPA the Same name as their Auto Glass Company. There should be no mention of Safelite during the claim process. That is subliminal steering.
The fact that the TPA has the Name Safelite gives them first dibs at acquiring the customer. Rename it the National glass claims network and give the customer preference or choice by zip code. Refer alphabetically to shops and zip.