A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 38-77-285 SO AS TO PROVIDE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE APPRAISERS AND INSURERS MAY NOT REQUIRE INSUREDS TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED AUTOMOBILE SAFETY GLASS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Summary
H4049 would add a new section to South Carolina’s insurance code governing automobile safety glass claims. The bill prohibits automobile physical damage appraisers, insurers, and their agents or third-party claims administrators from requiring an insured to use a particular glass shop or facility for repair or replacement of damaged auto safety glass. It also bars insurers from suggesting that using a nonpreferred shop could cause delays or void a guarantee, and it requires an initial disclosure telling consumers they have the right to choose a licensed glass shop.
The bill further restricts insurers and claims administrators from steering customers to glass shops owned by the insurer, administrator, or their parent company unless they also provide at least one additional licensed shop in the area. Violations would be treated not only as existing insurance-code violations but also as unfair trade practices under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, exposing violators to additional remedies and penalties. The act would take effect upon the Governor’s approval.
Impact
H4049 would change South Carolina law by creating a specific consumer-choice rule for automobile safety glass repairs and replacements. It limits insurer and appraiser control over repair-shop selection, requires disclosure of the insured’s right to choose a licensed shop, and adds an anti-steering requirement when affiliated glass shops are mentioned. The bill also expands enforcement by making violations unfair trade practices, which can trigger civil remedies and penalties under the state’s trade practices law in addition to existing insurance penalties.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection bill with a generally pro-consumer purpose. Its stated policy direction favors insureds’ freedom to choose repair providers and transparency in claims handling. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is available in the provided materials to indicate broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s restriction on insurer steering and preferred-provider programs. Insurers, third-party administrators, and affiliated glass shops may view the measure as limiting claims-management practices, network arrangements, and cost-control tools, while consumer advocates would likely support the right-to-choose provisions and anti-coercion language. The added unfair-trade-practice penalty also increases potential liability, which could be another source of concern for the insurance industry.