Senate hearing on auto‑glass bill exposes industry split over assignment of benefits and steering

OLYMPIA — A public hearing on Senate Bill 5,871 on Jan. 14 revealed a sharp split between insurance industry groups and large repair networks that support the bill, and many independent auto‑glass shop owners who oppose it.

The bill makes three principal changes: it prohibits assignment of an insured’s duties, rights or benefits under a property and casualty insurance policy to another person (any such contract would be void and unenforceable); it establishes duties and prohibited practices for motor vehicle glass repair shops (including requirements around estimates, invoices and ADAS recalibration notification and performance); and it authorizes the Office of the Insurance Commissioner to adopt rules and penalties. Committee staff said the bill applies to policies issued or renewed on or after July 1 (year not specified in the briefing) and that a fiscal note was requested but not yet available.

Rory Payne Donovan and Lauren Burns of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner testified in support; Donovan said the office "supports banning the assignment of benefits to protect consumers when they're at their most vulnerable" and asked to work with the sponsor to draft technical amendments. Burns told the committee the bill "introduces a new chapter to Title 48 dedicated to regulating motor vehicle glass repair claims" and flagged definitional clarifications the OIC would seek for effective administration.

Tom Tucker, vice president of legislative affairs for Safelite Auto Glass, urged passage and framed the bill as consumer protection and safety policy. Tucker said "AOB is a major contributor in auto glass fraud" and described a pattern — inducements such as gift cards that lead to inflated invoices and litigation — and cited other states where similar laws were followed by sharp drops in litigation.

Independent shop owners and the Independent Glass Association opposed the measure as drafted. Tom Grama, speaking for All Star Auto Glass, said Washington already has anti‑fraud law (RCW 48.30A) and argued SB 5871 would ‘‘jeopardize Washington state consumers,’’ reduce local jobs and create an uneven playing field that advantages large, vertically integrated third‑party administrators. Grama called Safelite "a predatory and monopolistic multinational corporation." Gary Hart of the Independent Glass Association recommended targeted amendments to preserve narrow, revocable post‑loss authorizations for independent shops, require disclosure of financial affiliations, and make anti‑steering protections enforceable at first notice of loss.

Trade associations representing insurers supported the bill with minor technical suggestions. Brandon Vick (NAMIC) and Kenton Bridal (Northwest Insurance Council) described SB 5871 as a national model to curb inflated costs and litigation; they urged minor clarifications such as specifying "automobile insurance" where appropriate.

Why it matters: The bill would change who can control claims and how repair shops interact with insurers, with direct consequences for consumer choice, repair quality (including ADAS recalibration), litigation risk and market structure in the auto‑glass sector.

Next steps: Committee members asked technical questions and OIC requested collaboration on definitions and enforcement mechanics. No vote was taken; proponents and opponents said they would continue negotiations on amendments.