This text of South Carolina § 39-5-180 (Vehicle glass repairs; false claims.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
It is an unlawful practice for a person who sells, repairs, or replaces vehicle glass to knowingly:
(1)submit a claim to an insurer or a third party administrator for vehicle glass repair, replacement, or related services:
(a)if the vehicle glass was not damaged prior to repair or replacement;
(b)if the services were not provided;
(c)showing work performed in a geographical area that in fact was not the location where the services were provided and that results in a higher payment than would otherwise be paid to the person by the policyholder's insurer;
(d)without having an authorization by the owner, lessee, or insured driver of the vehicle for the repair of the vehicle;
(e)showing work performed on a date other than the date the work was actually performed and resulting in a change
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
It is an unlawful practice for a person who sells, repairs, or replaces vehicle glass to knowingly: (1) submit a claim to an insurer or a third party administrator for vehicle glass repair, replacement, or related services: (a) if the vehicle glass was not damaged prior to repair or replacement; (b) if the services were not provided; (c) showing work performed in a geographical area that in fact was not the location where the services were provided and that results in a higher payment than would otherwise be paid to the person by the policyholder's insurer; (d) without having an authorization by the owner, lessee, or insured driver of the vehicle for the repair of the vehicle; (e) showing work performed on a date other than the date the work was actually performed and resulting in a change of insurance coverage status; or (f) making any other material misrepresentation related to the repair or an insurance claim submitted in relation to that repair; (2) advise a policyholder to falsify the date of damage to the vehicle glass that results in a change of insurance coverage for repair or replacement of the vehicle glass; (3) falsely sign on behalf of a policyholder or another person a work order, insurance assignment form, or other related form in order to submit a claim to an insurer for vehicle glass repair or replacement or for related services; (4) intentionally misrepresent to a policyholder or other person: (a) the price of the proposed repairs or replacement being billed to the policyholder's insurer; or (b) that the insurer or third party administrator has authorized the repairs or replacement of the glass of the insured vehicle; (5) represent to a policyholder or other person that the repair or replacement will be paid for entirely by the policyholder's insurer and at no cost to the policyholder unless the insurance coverage has been verified by a person who is employed by, or is a producer contracted with the policyholder's insurer, or is a third party administrator contracted with the insurer; (6) add to the damage of vehicle glass before repair in order to increase the scope of repair or replacement or encourage a policyholder or other person to add to the damage of vehicle glass before repair; (7) perform work clearly and substantially beyond the level of work necessary to repair or replace the vehicle glass to put the vehicle back into a pre-loss condition in accordance with accepted or approved reasonable and customary glass repair or replacement techniques; (8) engage in business practices that have the effect of providing rebates or something of value to an insured who files a claim to pay for the glass repair or replacement services provided; or (9) intentionally misrepresent the relationship of the glass repair facility to the policyholder's insurer. For the purposes of determining whether a person intended the misrepresentation, the person presumably intended the misrepresentation if he was engaged in a regular and consistent pattern of misrepresentation. For the purposes of determining whether a defendant knew of any particular element of the prohibited activity, the person presumably had knowledge if he was engaged in a regular and consistent pattern of the prohibited activity.