Imagine if you were going to buy a new car and the bank that was lending you the money pressured you

to buy from a specific list of car dealers. Now add to that a statement by the banks loan officer that while

you can legally buy your car from any dealer you choose, if you choose someone other than on their

preferred list they may not pay for the tires, or radio, or some other part of the vehicle.

Clearly if the above scenario were to happen most consumers would sense something is wrong here and

contact either the banking commission, attorney general, or at the least, find another bank. However, a

similar scenario happens numerous times every single day when consumers file an automobile insurance

claim with their insurer; even though the law specifically prohibits insurers from doing so. However, in

this scenario consumers often feel intimidated to the point they are afraid to not follow the suggestion

by insurers of where to have the car repaired out of fear that the insurer will hold up their claim, not pay

the full amount, or in some cases cancel their insurance, which is also illegal.

Ironically, with the bank, it is the banks money, which may seem to justify their desire to control the

place of purchase. But with the insurer it is your money. You are simply claiming it under the terms of

your contract. You have paid a premium every month for "forever" it seems, and when you do have an

accident, you are entitled to be paid by your insurer "the full amount" that it cost to repair the car, less

deductible if applicable. So why is it that consumers are so unaware of what their rights are when it

comes to choosing a repairer and why do insurers seemingly ignore the statutes and regulations that bar

them from suggesting or requesting their insured's have repairs done at a specific location?

According to the Massachusetts Auto Body Association (MABA) the answer to the first question is that

most consumers do not have the type of familiarity with their policy and the relevant portions of

Massachusetts laws and regulations against steering. However, there is no excuse for insurers, or

independent appraisers hired by insurers for their flouting of these laws. What is more than likely is that

the insurers and others bound by these laws are well aware from past practices that the state agencies

required to enforce these violations have done virtually nothing to uphold them.

"Steering is a very serious problem within the collision repair industry," said MABA President Ed

Nalewanski. "It violates a consumer's basic right to choose a collision repair facility and is done generally

to avoid the honest small businessman who demands that all necessary procedures are done to restore

the car to its pre-accident condition, which is what people are entitled to under their insurance policy.

Consumers have a right to freely choose their insurer. Insurers should respect that same right to choose

a collision repair shop," he added.

MABA has long complained that the lack of enforcement by the appropriate state agencies that regulate

insurers has emboldened insurer's violation of steering and other forms of unfair settlement practices.

The agencies counter with the position that they do not have very many complaints by consumers or

collision repairers to justify an expenditure of limited resources. MABA cites that as the Catch-22.

"The reality is that these agencies never really pursued with any appropriate diligence complaints that

we are aware of, which were filed with them," said MABA spokesman Stephen Regan. "Therefore,

consumers and repairers eventually begin to feel that time and effort required to file and follow up on

these complaints was not worth the effort, which results in fewer complaints. That does not mean that

the problem has gone away," he concluded.

If the agencies responsible for enforcing the laws against steering have any doubt whether this practice

is common they need look no further than comments made at a legislative hearing on the issue by an

executive from the insurance industry. Bob Woods, formerly of OneBeacon Insurance made the following

comment when testifying before the legislature's Joint Committee on Insurance. "Let's face it the reason

we are here [at a State House hearing] is steering. Does Steering happen? Of course it does, it happens

every day. The current laws and regulations (against it) do nothing to stop it." Mr. Woods was basically

trying to make the case that since it is happening every day, and no one is doing anything about it, the

legislature should simply repeal the laws on steering. They didn't.

In fact there are so many statutes and regulations addressing the issue it is clear that the legislature

clearly considers steering an activity that they do not want perpetrated in the collision repair and insurer

markets. Some of the relevant statutes that address the issue of steering are M.G.L. ch. 26, sec. 8G,

M.G.L. ch. 90, sec. 34O, par. 15, cl. (c), and M.G.L. ch. 175, sec. 113O, par. 4, cl. (c). In addition,

Massachusetts Regulations that address steering are 211 CMR 123.06 (1) and 212 CMR 2.04(1) (c). There

is also an advisory opinion from the Massachusetts Auto Damage appraisers Licensing Board that

provides a clear interpretation of steering and how serious an issue they believe it to be.

"It's unfortunate that with this many statutes on the books that the state agencies required to oversee

compliance are not more vigilant," said MABA's Regan. "But there is hope. Perhaps with a new Governor,

new Attorney General, and new Commissioner of Insurance things will get better for consumers and

repairers who complain about this practice. It certainly can't get much