Welcome to AutoRepairLegal.com
Collision Repairers and Consumers should all know about the launching of AutoRepairLegal.com, a website enabling people to peruse the laws and regulations of a particular state, and to submit information for upload.
I almost always refrain from writing off-topic, but something just made me want to tell the world that we are now allowed to sell “defense articles” and provide “defense services” to the Republics of Montenegro and Serbia, per recent presidential order.
The only thing I know about Montenegro is what I learned from Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe, the fat, orchid-loving, food-obsessed, misogynistic detective.
The Republic of Serbia, on the other hand. Wasn’t that one of the countries that recently engaged in ethnic cleansing and a bloody war with Croatia? I guess if you label them as ”defensive” articles, that means those articles can’t be used offensively. Does the God of War get to play referee and send someone who breaks the rule to the penalty box for a well-deserved time out? As Asimov wrote in Foundation, “It’s a poor atom blaster that doesn’t point both ways.”
Oh, and when I looked up the female-hating word to make sure I spelled it correctly, I got stopped by “scrofulous” which – besides being of, like, or having scrofula — means “morally corrupt”. I like that one.
| Auto Body Association Protest | ||
|
03-28-07 | Members of the Auto Body Association of Connecticut protested at the State Capitol in Hartford in support of legislation to tighten the law against auto insurers steering drivers to specific repair shops. Videographer Alan Chaniewski
Video, as requested. This video only plays with Windows Media Player. Click below to download.
|
|
| You’ll need a version of Windows Media Player 7 or higher to view the video. If you need to download it, go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mediaplayer/en/default.asptarget=_blank The video player is supported by Microsoft IE 5.0 and above. | ||
Don’t look now, but there is a convoy of tow trucks in Connecticut’s capitol.
Frustrated with the fact that they have to pay annual licensing fees, comply with regulations of the Department of Motor Vehicles, maintain expensive insurance policies, and pay high rates of workers’ compensation to operate their businesses, while employees of Progressive’s Concierge facility in the Hartford area admittedly disassemble customers’ vehicles without a repair license, members of Connecticut’s repair and towing industries are taking their fight to Progressive’s doorstep.
And their message is clear. Stop letting Progressive compete without making it comply with the repair licensing laws.
Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, is on board with the repairers and tow companies. Literally. Blumenthal is scheduled to give a press conference from one of the tow trucks. After the press conference, the convoy is headed to Progressive’s Concierge facility in Newington, Connecticut — which Progressive’s website identifies as its Hartford Concierge facility.
Unable to face the rumble, Progressive is reportedly shutting down that facility for the day.
Good Samaritan law may not apply - USATODAY.com
A colleague forwarding this story said:
In Germany you are required by law to stop and help to the best of your abilities. In the US apparently you don’t and now after reading this, I’d definitely think twice or three times before I even consider about helping anybody.
And we wonder why people in the U.S. hesitate to stop and give help to others?
As if buying a car is not complicated enough, at least one BMW dealer in California has added yet another layer of complication to the activity. A well-spoken blogger in California wrote about her attempted car buying experience that culminated in a “No Sale” all because the dealership refused to sell her the vehicle unless she first provided her right thumbprint.
In her quest to purchase a BMW X3 (a nice vehicle, I might add), Lorna furnished her driver’s license and marriage certificate (her name had changed), and her credit report was run by the dealership — although she asserts it was done without her knowledge. I’m not suggesting this is untrue, but she must have supplied her social security number on the purchase application (the forms usually have a pre-printed section requiring one to fill out that information) or the dealership would have had to have obtained her SSN somehow to run the credit history. Perhaps California is a state that still has a driver’s social security number stamped on its face. (I have always been puzzled by the fact that Departments of Motor Vehicles and state universities thought it was a great idea to use one’s SSN as a driver’s license or student identification number. They simply helped create the identity theft debacle now at hand.)
Nonetheless, Lorna, of lornamatic.com, discovered that the BMW dealership refused to sell her the X3 unless she voluntarily provided her right thumbprint and authorized the dealership to obtain her DMV Driver’s License Record — which, of course, would contain a copy of her right thumbprint that she had to supply to the California DMV to obtain her driver’s license. Lorna was doubly surprised to find that the dealership intended to keep the copies of her personal information, but the personnel there were unable to provide her with information regarding the company’s privacy policy and data security procedures.
I was intrigued by Lorna’s experience, so I took a look to see what I could find about California’s laws on the subject. Here’s what I discovered:
While in the past this provision has generally been applied to protect the confidentiality of what might ordinarily be termed “medical” information — such as information relating to an applicant’s eyesight (see 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 122 (1972); 26 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136 (1955)) — a reasonable interpretation of the provision affords protection of that portion of a driver’s license application that reveals the applicant’s fingerprint.
Such an interpretation does not conflict with the statutory language because a fingerprint clearly relates to the “physical condition” of the applicant. Also, it furthers the general underlying purpose of the provision, which is to protect the confidentiality of information revealed by a driver’s license application where exposure will improperly infringe the applicant’s privacy rights.
Id. at 194, 721 P.2d at 55, 228 Cal. Rptr. at 174.
So, now we know that her thumbprint could not be obtained by the dealership from the DMV indiscriminately, the operative question is whether she can consent to the release of that personal information. It seems highly likely that she can, which again raises a question as to the dealer’s personal information data privacy and security policy. Clearly the dealer has an obligation to protect the information Lorna provided to it as a requirment of the Information Practices Act. Had the dealer obtained information about her from the DMV, then the dealer would have to maintain the information securely as a requirement of the Vehicle Code.
These, of course, are only my observations and I would welcome any additional information or thoughts from my colleagues who practice in California. Lorna’s experience is just a little too much like living in a totalitarian regime for my taste. After all, if we weren’t so busy collecting all of this information about people, we wouldn’t be able to use it to pose as the upstanding citizen that the data collection says we are. Don’t forget, Big Brother is watching you.
Today sees the advent of a new auto-related site called HealthyCar.org, at which consumers can investigate and research the “healthiest” and most unhealthy vehicles based on their chemical components. According to HealthyCar.org, that ”new car smell” is actually caused by toxic chemicals and is dangerous to your health.
I suppose this could be a marketing tool for selling used cars.
Everybody ought to have a … beetle. A VW beetle, that is.
I am currently driving a 2006 Volkswagen Beetle Package 2, manual transmission, moonroof, heated seats — the works. This car is a room with a view. Surrounded by glass, moonroof overhead, no appreciable blind spots, you can really see where you are going. The Beetle is extremely nimble as it skips around other cars on the highway and the clutch and transmission are smooth as glass. This would be a perfect car on which to teach a novice how to drive standard shift.
The 2006 Beetle is full of surprises. It’s a delightful little car that accommodates tall people. There’s plenty of headroom and a lot of legroom when the front seat is moved back. Actually, the amount of headroom and the spaciousness of the interior astound me, as the Beetle is a very compact creature observed from the outside.
The interior is practical lux — spare but not cold. The Bug reflects its German heritage with easy to handle dials for heat, air, and lights highly reminiscent of the Mercedes SLK when it first arrived. Turn signals and wipers are on paired stalks on the steering column, and the coup de grâce is the heated seats with dial up dash controls. The leather interior is refined but understated, and the entire effect is clean and crisp like the Mini Cooper, but warmer and more inviting than its rival. The Mini, however, has a much roomier rear seat compartment, and anyone prone to claustrophobia should never climb into the rear of the Bug. It’s a very tight fit.
There isn’t a lot of trunk space in this VW, but with folding rear seats, it will accommodate golf clubs or big luggage. The Monsoon radio/CD player is easy to handle, too. One thing I found irksome was the fact that the CD skipped to the next track whenever the car encountered a bump while turning. This glitch never happened when crossing railroad tracks or other bumps as long as I was driving straight forward.
Surprisingly, for the entire week I have been driving the Beetle, an indicator light never once went on. VWs are known in the remarketing world for being highly sensitive beasts whose airbag and seatbelt lights click on frequently to keep you from getting too comfortable. There is almost never anything wrong with these features when the alerts activate, but the number and frequency of popup alert lights have earned VWs the nickname “christmas trees” in the remarketing world.
Other crowd-pleasers of this hardworking car include vanity mirrors on both driver and passenger visors that automatically activate a complementary light when opened. The driver also has a side visor to block out sun or light. Gas and trunk releases are at hand on the driver’s door, and the dual window controls are there as well. Finally, it is economical. $15 (at $2.28/gallon) filled the empty gas tank to about 70% full, a welcome relief to the budget-conscious.
All in all, a great car with lots of extras for the money.
Attributes
Every new lawyer who has ever worked in a firm knows the terror of potentially writing a memorandum, brief, or making some representation of the status of a statute or case that is relied upon by others that turns out to be — well — wrong. I’m not talking of distinctions or hair-splitting about the case; I’m talking about cases that have been overturned, vacated, or heavily discredited and statutes that have been repealed or superseded. That’s a new lawyer’s nightmare and, for the obsessive-compulsive in the rest of us, that concern never quite goes away.
Apparently, that concern didn’t register with insurance representatives lobbying Connecticut’s Insurance and Real Estate Legislative Committee when they argued the Committee should not approve legislation drafted by the State’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, to make the State’s “steering” law stricter. Three different insurance representatives told the Committee that a New York statute N.Y. Ins. Law § 2610 with similar language had been stricken as an unconstitutional violation of insurers’ right to commercial speech. What each of them neglected to tell the Committee, however, is that the District Court decision making that statement had been vacated, and, after several appellate court decisions, on remand the District Court had issued a different opinion refusing to enjoin the NY Department of Insurance from enforcing the statute, refusing to rule on the insurers’ First Amendment claims, and dismissing the lawsuit.
Even more troubling, the District Court’s new opinion reiterated the Second Circuit’s finding that insurers could not challenge the NY statute on facial grounds, indicating that the court’s original finding of a constitutional violation regarding the statute itself was in error.
The Second Circuit explicitly rejected a facial challenge to § 2610(b). That court noted, “to the extent that the parties [] present a facial challenge to § 2610(b), it is an ‘overbreadth’ challenge, and such a challenge cannot lie with respect to a regulation of commercial speech.” Allstate II, 261 F.3d at 153
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Serio, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13541 (D.N.Y. 2003)
In other words, the insurance representatives’ statements were gross misrepresentations of the status of (existing) New York law.
I guess I’m shocked because I wouldn’t dream of stating something to a government entity – certainly not something as damning as a violation of The Constitution — without checking, rechecking, and re-rechecking to make absolutely certain it was true. But, when no one holds you accountable, I guess you feel that sloppy information presentation is perfectly acceptable. If this is any demonstration of how well state regulated insurance operates, insurers can kiss the McCarran-Ferguson Act goodbye.
Anyway, after all of these legal decisions, the NY Department of Insurance issued Circular 14 on December 4, 2003 plainly stating that the steering law was in effect and that it would be enforced per the interpretation of the NY Court of Appeals’ decision. Seven months later in June of 2004, the NY DOI’s General Counsel issued an opinion that insurers would be in violation of the steering statute if they informed claimants their vehicles could only be repaired at a facility certified by the claimants’ auto manufacturers.
Yeah, that’s really a statute that was struck down for its unconsitutional language.
The Allstate v. Serio cases, NY DOI Circulars, and NY DOI Opinion can be accessed via links below:
(more…)
NAMIC, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, issued a “Statement for the record to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding The McCarran-Ferguson Act” protesting any repeal or limitation of the MFA”. According to NAMIC’s website, the organization identified saving the MFA as its top issue of 2007.
I sometimes hear that insurers actually favor a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Here, for the record is NAMIC’s position on the issue.
NAMIC POSITION…NAMIC opposes any changes to or repeal of the existing antitrust exemptions afforded under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Congress should be wary of the unintended consequences of changes to the current limited antitrust exemption. Any change that precludes, restricts, or even merely discourages the production and exchange of advisory loss costs and supplementary rating information could place smaller and regional firms at a distinct disadvantage, increase consumer costs, reduce consumer choice, and seriously undermine competition. There is no credible evidence that the cost, availability, or quality of insurance products would be enhanced if the McCarran-Ferguson limited antitrust exemptions were repealed or modified. Any change in the existing antitrust regime and repeal or modification to the current limitations could decrease market stability, reduce affordability and availability of products, stifle innovation and expansion, diminish industry efficiency, and, ultimately, inhibit rather than increase competition in the insurance marketplace.
Apparently, Insurers are surprised that the MFA is under attack, The Washington Post reported at the end of last month.
The insurance industry is one of Washington’s fiercest and best-funded lobbies, so it rarely gets surprised. But last week several industry representatives privately acknowledged amazement that their most important federal benefit — an antitrust exemption — is in danger.
Well, hello. Where have they been since November of 2002 when the Antitrust Modernization Commission was formed? Having attended meetings of the Commission and submitted comments on the need to repeal the MFA, I know first-hand that insurers were oblivious to the threat. Ironically, when attorneys representing insurers and journalists writing on the industry started looking into the AMC’s interest in the MFA, they called me. Nonetheless, the fact that an industry that has one of “Washington’s fiercest and best-funded lobbies” completely ignored the AMC shows a certain level of arrogance or stupidity that is difficult to believe.
Yet, now, the insurers are up-in-arms about Senate Bill 618 and the companion house bill submitted last month. According to The Washington Post:
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has already created a “war room” that is targeting the districts and states of lawmakers who might be sympathetic or persuadable. It is hunting for insurers with employees in those places whom they can train to lobby their elected representatives. A broad coalition of insurance lobbies is also in the offing.
I wonder if those employees will continue to receive their insurance company salaries while they are lobbying their elected representatives and whether those salaries will be included in and reported as money spent to lobby Congress.
AutoRemarketing reported today stories from sales personnel at Ford dealerships on the extreme measures some customers are taking to buy the maker’s new crossover, Edge. With all the negative press coming out of Detroit these days, it’s really encouraging to hear that a U.S. manufacturer has managed to produce a product that buyers actually want.
Yesterday, Business Insurance reported that Mississippi’s Attorney General, Jim Hood, urged Congress to repeal the insurance industry’s exemption to the application of the federal antitrust laws. Apparently, AG Hood testified before the House Financial Services Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and accused insurers of trying to intimidate the state’s justice system.
Well, that wouldn’t exactly be news, as California’s former Insurance Commissioner, and now Lieutenant Governor, John Garamendi, issued press releases about how insurers threatened to pour money into a campaign to defeat his bid for the position of Lt. Governor if he insisted on implementing laws and regulations approved by California’s voters that insurers disliked.
Garamendi issued a May 8, 2006 press release from the DOI’s office declaring:
Let me make it clear, I will not be intimidated – not even by the political clout of a $120 billion industry that is willing to go to any length to get its way. This action by the special interest insurance lobby is pure blackmail and extortion, an attempt to stop me from issuing new regulations that will finally implement the will of the voters as expressed in Prop. 103 in 1988.
Garamendi went so far as to take steps to initiate an investigation into the insurance industry’s attempt to blackmail him. In his letter to the FBI, the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, and the California Attorney General’s Office, Garamendi stated that insurers had previously voiced their displeasure about the implementation of certain auto insurance pricing regulations in a proper manner.
But things changed dramatically on April 24 [2006]. On that day the insurance industry veered dangerously off track in its efforts, and I firmly believe that its leaders have attempted blackmail and extortion against me.
Naming names, Garamendi’s press release of May 9, 2006 said that, “It has now been reported that State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, Safeco, 21st Century Insurance, and others are financing this campaign.” Ouch.
John Garamendi also issued the following concern and warning to his correspondents about future actions of the insurance industry.
While this threat was unsuccessful, I believe it is now my responsibility to stand up to this powerful special interest group and set in stone that they cannot engage in, much less succeed with such tactics. This is a serious threat not only to me, but also to the Insurance Commissioners who follow. They, and all other regulators, must be allowed to protect the consumers of California and carry out the laws of the State and people in an atmosphere free of coercion, blackmail and extortion.
Ouch, indeed.
For anyone interested in seeing the Antitrust Modernization Commission wind down, the AMC is holding (what I expect) will be its last public hearing prior to submitting its report and recommendations to Congress and the President. Although the AMC website doesn’t yet reflect the newly scheduled meeting and the agenda hasn’t been posted, the Federal Register notifies that the hearing will be held March 14, 2007. Anyone wishing to attend must schedule in advance by March 13, 2007 for security reasons.
Sometimes I just like to hop around the auto arena to see what my fellow autobloggers are talking about. And I always find interesting stuff I want to share.
Here’s something fun from cynic Joe Sherlock on how to solve the Chrysler spin-off problem for DCC by offering Chrysler as a time share proposition. Likewise Buickman, Jim Dollinger, over at General Watch slayed me with the editorial Cannibals and the Secretary. In a Dilbertian view of relative importance within any organization, the cannibals definitively know whose flesh will be noticed if it goes missing. I admit; I sent this to all my friends toiling in the Middle Earth of corporate America.
Carpundit writes a good deal this week on automated law enforcement tactics. CP wonders whether red light cameras are rigged, and how the Chicago Police Department is now using automated license plate readers. CP also wonders about the Chicago PD publicly asking why thieves are stealing catalytic converters. What I find interesting is that the Chicago PD has launched an “official” blog Checkerboard Chat. Maybe this is a widespread trend that I’m not aware of, but it seems to me that a blog is a great way for a police department to allow the public to participate in significant law enforcement issues. After all, isn’t that part of what makes the Amber Alert so effective — getting the public involved as soon as possible to be on the alert for a missing child and suspect?
The Georgia Collision Industry Association has launched its blog, Collision Solutions. GCIA is welcoming articles and information from industry members, as well as offering the ability to comment on those articles. The industry association tells us that: ”The purpose of this blog is to educate, inform, and allow like minded individuals in the Collision Industry to post message about issues affecting their businesses. Please send all articles that you would like posted to gcia at gcia.org.”
Dave Williams at Safe Collision Repairs provides interesting information on customer satisfaction surveys with his post Auto Repair Quality not Usually Reflected in CSI Scores. Dave’s article talks about the lack of important questions and information being incorporated into the surveys given to customers. The most important appears to be that no one involved in the customer service indexing process cares about the actual quality of the repair.
And the Oscar closer comes from John Shortell of BodyShopSolutions for The Wonderful World of Claim Handling Companies. As only John can write it, at least one insurance company out there is paying $105 for an hour’s worth of work for an outside estimating company to write an estimate chisling the body shop, when insurers insist on paying body shops a prevailing labor rate that is less than half that amount. Actually, John puts it quite eloquently, “You can’t get half of that from the same insurance company for skilled labor, repairing the vehicle, but they’ll pay some flunkies $105 per hour for clerical work.” (emphasis added.)
John was being circumspect there. I happen to know that the insurers’ alleged “prevailing competitive price” in the State of Connecticut, the state at issue — for the entire state (Hartford, Greenwich, Stamford, you name it) – is $45 an hour. That’s the gross profit for an hour’s worth of work from which the skilled technicians and employees must be paid, rent, workers comp., utilities, supplies, accounting fees, license fees, taxes, etc., and, oh yes, insurance. I doubt you could hire a teenage babysitter in Greenwich, CT for $45 an hour. And insurers think a body shop should take the responsibility of peoples’ lives in their hands for substantially less than paper-pushers get for an hour’s worth of work? Get real.
Perhaps even more offensive is the language at the bottom of the appraisal invoice: “The shop estimated damage at $4318.59. We appraised the damage at $3614.19. A savings of $704.40!”
Anyone can appraise the damage for less. Doing so honestly, legitimately, and without depriving the claimant of a proper and safe repair is the challenge. Not that this concept seems to worry too many appraisers working on behalf of an insurer, even ones charged with the ethical obligation to handle every claim in an unbiased manner. Can you imagine if a claimant hired an appraiser whose invoice included this phrase at the bottom: The insurance company estimated damage at $3614.19. We appraised the damage at $4318.59. An increase of $704.40!
Insurers would lose their minds.
Powered by WordPress
