OF A VEHICLE INSURANCE POLICY OR IN THE FORM OF A DIRECTIVE FROM THE HOME OFFICE, IT STILL MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. THAT BEING SO, THE CENTRAL ISSUE RAISED BY YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER AN INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA IS PROHIBITED BY THE CODE OR OTHER LAW FROM REQUIRING ITS INSUREDS TO HAVE ALL REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENTS OF DAMAGED AUTOMOBILE GLASS WINDOWS TO BE PERFORMED EXCLUSIVELY BY A DESIGNATED VENDOR OR REPAIR SHOP. IT APPEARS FROM A REVIEW OF THE CODE AND OTHER LAWS THAT SUCH A PRACTICE IS NOT PROHIBITED. IN FACT, ONE ACT FOUND WITHIN THE CODE CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES SUCH AN EVENTUALITY ALBEIT WITH SOME REGULATIONS.
II.
THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT
IN 1986, THE CODE WAS AMENDED BY THE ENACTMENT OF TWO IMPORTANT REGULATORY ACTS IN THE AREA OF CLAIMS PRACTICES. THOSE ACTS WERE THE UNFAIR CLAIM SETTLEMENT PRACTICES ACT ("UCSPA"), 36 O.S. 1221-36 O.S. 1228 (1991), AND THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT, 36 O.S. 1251-36 O.S. 1260. THE UCSPA PROHIBITS UNFAIR CLAIM SETTLEMENT PRACTICES SUCH AS MISREPRESENTATION OF CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS RELATED TO COVERAGE, FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND INVESTIGATE CLAIMS PROMPTLY, BAD FAITH SETTLEMENT, COMPELLING POLICYHOLDERS TO INSTITUTE LAWSUITS TO RECOVER AMOUNTS DUE UNDER POLICIES AND THE FAILURE TO RECORD COMPLAINTS AS DIRECTED BY STATUTE. 36 O.S. 1222 (1991). BASED UPON MY REVIEW OF THE UCSPA, IT IS MY OPINION THAT IT WOULD NOT COVER THE PRACTICE WITH WHICH YOU ARE CONCERNED.
HOWEVER, THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT DOES APPEAR TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THAT PRACTICE. LIKE THE UCSPA, THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT PROHIBITS CERTAIN ACTS BY AN INSURER OR AGENT IN THE HANDLING OF CLAIMS. IT PROHIBITS ACTS SUCH AS THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL BENEFITS AND COVERAGE UNDER A POLICY WHICH ARE PERTINENT TO THE CLAIM, CONCEALING THE SAME, THE IMPOSITION OF TIME LIMITS WHICH, IF NOT COMPLIED WITH, WOULD RELIEVE THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATIONS, REQUIRING THE CLAIMANT TO SIGN A RELEASE BEYOND THE FACTS WHICH OCCASIONED THE CLAIM AND THE ISSUANCE OF CHECKS WHICH SPECIFY THAT THE INSURER IS RELEASED FROM ITS TOTAL LIABILITY. 36 O.S. 1254 (1991). THE PRACTICE WITH WHICH YOU ARE CONCERNED IS NOT AMONG THOSE PROHIBITED BY THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A SEPARATE PROVISION (36 O.S. 1257) WITHIN THE CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS INVOLVING TOTAL LOSS OR DAMAGE TO A MOTOR VEHICLE.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, 1257 PROVIDES A DETAILED METHOD AND PROCEDURE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS INVOLVING MOTOR VEHICLES WHICH ARE "TOTAL LOSSES." SUBSECTION (H) ALSO ADDRESSES PARTIALLY DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLES AND REPAIRS THERETO. IT PROVIDES:
"IF AN INSURER ELECTS TO REPAIR A DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE AND DESIGNATES A SPECIFIC REPAIR SHOP FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIRS, THE INSURER SHALL CAUSE THE DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE TO BE RESTORED TO ITS CONDITION PRIOR TO THE LOSS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO A CLAIMANT OTHER THAN AS STATED IN THE POLICY AND WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. THE