Find a Nissan Certified Collision Repair Network Shop Nissan Certified Collision Repair Network shops have the right technicians, equipment and tools along with the knowledge to get the job done right. For a timely, high-quality repair, we recommend choosing a Nissan Certified Collision Repair Facility.open since 1984, we use top of the line materials such as waterborn paint which is better for the enviornment. All our techs are trained and certified by icar the leading industry training that contributes to complete, safe and quality repairs. We are certified in steel and aluminum repairs and welding. We have been certified in mercedes benz repairs for over two decades. We are a allstate drive in center and repair facility as well as liberty mutual. We specialize in eletric hybrid vehicles. We use all the latest tools to repair the vehicles back to manufactures spesifications. We also gaurentee our work for as long as you own the vehicle, full warrenty on paint and all repairs made to the vehicleHoursSun Closed Mon 8:00 am - 6:00 pm Tue 8:00 am - 5:30 pm Wed 8:00 am - 5:30 pm Thu 8:00 am - 5:30 pm Fri 8:00 am - 5:30 pm Sat 8:00 am - 1:00 pm ServicesAutomotive Glass ReplacementDetailingInsurance Company AssistanceLifetime WarrantyMotorcycle RepairPaintless Dent RepairAccepted Payment MethodsAmerican ExpressCashDebit CardDiscover CardMasterCardVisaLanguagesEnglish
Filter Reviews by: Rating, Profile, Gender, Age, Verified Purchase (164) 18 to 24 (4) 25 to 34 (12) 35 to 44 (24) 45 to 54 (32) 55 to 64 (32) 65 or Over (17) Yes, I just gave a good review about one of your employees. This Home Depo .So far so good. I do notice an improvement in your store. We need good role models to set the tone for real leadership. I retired from the NYCDE. And I also remember I never said to other professional workers. " This is not my job " If your boss asked you to do a little more....for the sake of all, do it. That goes a long way. And it is noticeable on your record for the future of you and the company store as well. Cashier Michele (only using her name because she annoyed me) not knowledgeable, tells me my 10% coupon was not valid because I needed a $200 purchase, when in fact it stated a maximum discount of $200. What annoyed me was, she asked me "don't you read it before you use it?", when it was she that didn't read it correctly.
Because of her I got motivated to go to the service desk to prove her wrong. I rated it 3 stars rather than 1 because the service desk lady was very helpful, Thanks to Victoria, she corrected the mistake. Very organized and clean store. Employees are very friendly and eager to help you find the items you are looking for. Very organized and neat store. Employees are friendly and very courteous. Each time I have visited the Valley Stream store the employees have been very knowledgeable and helpful. The really go out of their way to be help and have you leave satisfied with your purchase(s). The personnel working in the plumbing section were great, they were friendly and knew their product lines. They were a great help with my home repair project On 12/1/16 the associate in plumbing named Dave was extremely helpful and polite. He walked me through, step by step on the assembly process of the parts he recommended for my repair. This was the first time at this location an associate actually approached me and said "Can I help you sir?".
Usually you can't find any help or the associates are walking around in pairs chatting with each other. The only other associate I know of is a very old man named Don. He goes out of his way to help you with anything. He even made me a key when the associate of that department said they don't carry it in stock. I commend these two associates and will look specifically for their assistance upon my next visit to this location. Other than that, the generic answer is "This is not my department". Submitted by tharris on May 29, 2015 - 2:54pm A recently filed action in New York, Harner v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 11-CV-2933 (S.D.N.Y.), shines the antitrust spotlight on the use of preferred provider networks by auto insurers. The plaintiff, an independent auto glass repair shop, alleges that the defendants – fourteen auto insurers and third party claims administrators Belron and Pittsburgh Glass Works – conspired to steer repair business away from plaintiff’s shop and/or failed to reimburse him for the full cost of repairs he made to the vehicles of the insurers’ insureds.
While several states prohibit the “steering” of insureds to preferred auto repair and/or glass repair shops, and legislation is frequently introduced addressing the legality of such conduct, the use of the antitrust laws to address such action is somewhat less common, and the legal principles governing such claims somewhat less well defined. In Harner, in addition to a host of common law claims, the plaintiff alleges that the insurers’ agreements with Belron (and/or its subsidiary, Safelite) and Pittsburgh Glass Works (and/or its subsidiary Lynx) constitute an unlawful conspiracy to “set, fix or stabilize” repair prices, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and New York General Statute 340 (the Donnelly Act – New York’s antitrust law). In addition, plaintiff also alleges that defendants have conspired to convince customers not to patronize his shop through misrepresentations about the quality of his services and/or his prices. On June 13, the defendants filed a position paper with the Court outlining their arguments supporting the dismissal of plaintiff’s antitrust claims.
With respect to plaintiff’s federal antitrust claims, defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege antitrust injury or antitrust standing, two necessary elements of plaintiff’s claim. Instead, defendants argue, the sole harm alleged by plaintiff is to his own business, not competition generally. Defendants also maintain that the claims should be dismissed because the complaint lacks any specifics concerning the time or place where the alleged agreements were hatched, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Finally, defendants assert that plaintiff’s claims are “rule of reason” claims, not per se claims, and thus they fail because plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the contours of the markets that plaintiff claims have been restrained. As to plaintiff’s state antitrust claims, defendants assert that the Donnelly Act “is construed in light of federal precedent,” citing Clorox Co. v. Winthrop, 836 F. Supp. 983 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), and thus those claims fail as well.
Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ contentions is due on July 5, and a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for July 11 before District Court Judge Cathy Seibel. The court’s action on plaintiff’s claims, regardless of the outcome, is likely to create important new guidance on how the antitrust laws apply to insurer practices in this frequently contentious area. REPRESENTATIVE DEFAZIO INTRODUCES McCARRAN REPEAL BILL On May 23, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Or) introduced the “Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act,” (H.R. 1943). The bill would repeal the antitrust exemption that health insurers currently enjoy under the McCarran Ferguson Act (15 USC 1011 et seq.) and also make non-profit health insurers subject to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition. Representative DeFazio has long advocated the repeal of the McCarran Ferguson Act’s antitrust exemption, having introduced such legislation in every Congress for the last 8 years.
His efforts came closest to fruition last Congress, when his repeal bill was passed in the House by a vote of 406 to 19, but was not acted on by the Senate before the close of the session. (DeFazio’s McCarran repeal language was also included in the health care reform bill that ultimately became the Affordable Care Act, but was dropped during the negotiations with the Senate prior to passage of the bill into law). In introducing the legislation this Congress, Representative DeFazio stated that “Right now, it is legal under federal law for insurance companies to collude to drive up prices, limit competition, conspire to underpay doctors and hospitals, and price gouge consumers,” and reiterated his view that “Insurance companies should play by the same rules as virtually every other industry in America.” He continued: “If 406 members could support this last year, there’s no reason to not pass it again this year.” Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), a co-sponsor of the bill, added that “It’s well past time that Congress act to strike this sweetheart deal.
The last Congress knew this to be a bipartisan and sensible proposition. I hope this Congress knows that as well.” H.R. 1943 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further action, and joins H.R. 1150, a similar McCarran repeal bill that was introduced by Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona in March. Representative Gosar’s bill is now pending before the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, having been referred there for further study on June 1. Notably, Representative Gosar is a Republican, so with McCarran repeal bills now having been introduced from both sides of the aisle, the likelihood that McCarran repeal will once again advance this Congress is greatly increased. In short, it appears that the McCarran repeal ride has begun again, and where it ends is, again, highly uncertain. UNITEDHEALTH FINED $1 MILLION FOR BREACH OF MERGER CONSENT DECREE On June 23, the Nevada Attorney General’s office announced that it had fined UnitedHealth $1 million for breaching the terms of an antitrust Consent Decree that UnitedHealth had agreed to in 2008 to close its acquisition of Sierra Health, a rival health insurer.
The Consent Decree had resolved an investigation of the deal by both the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Nevada Attorney General, each of which contended that the merger would have anticompetitive effects in certain Nevada insurance markets. To resolve the DOJ/Nevada AG concerns, UnitedHealth agreed to certain divestitures, made certain contributions to various Nevada health care organizations, and agreed not to proceed with a planned acquisition of another smaller rival, Fiserv Nevada, both at that time or in the future. Notwithstanding the terms of the Consent Decree, the Nevada Attorney General’s office determined that UnitedHealth had subsequently acquired all but one of Fiserv’s active customers, office space and equipment through a series of indirect assignments. As a result of these transactions, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto stated that “Fiserv Nevada ceased to do business, as demonstrated by Fiserv Nevada surrendering its license to perform third party administration of insurance in the state of Nevada,” which Attorney General Masto contended constituted a clear violation of the Consent Decree.
UnitedHealth disputed the State’s contentions, but agreed to pay the fine to resolve the dispute, issuing a statement indicating that “While we disagree with the allegations because UnitedHealth did not acquire an interest in, or engage in a joint venture with Fiserv Nevada, we felt it was important to reach a mutual agreement on this issue.” The remaining terms of the Consent Decree remain in effect. COURT PERMITS DOJ “MOST FAVORED NATION” SUIT AGAINST BLUE CROSS OF MICHIGAN TO PROCEED On June 7, District Court Judge Denise Hood issued her highly anticipated ruling on Blue Cross of Michigan’s motion to dismiss the antitrust complaint filed against it by the DOJ Antitrust Division and the State of Michigan (United States of America v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:10-cv-14155). The case challenges BCM’s use of “most favored nation” clauses in its provider contracts. Judge Hood denied BCM’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and at the same time denied as moot BCM’s motion to stay discovery pending her ruling on the motion to dismiss.
As such, discovery in the matter – which is expected to be extensive, as the DOJ previously indicated an intention to take up to 100 depositions – will now commence. Judge Hood’s decision was announced in open court at a hearing in a related case, City of Pontiac v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, and later memorialized in a Minute Order that provided no explanation of the basis for her ruling. Judge Hood indicated during the hearing, however, that she intends to issue a written ruling that reflects her analysis of BCM’s motion, but that the ruling has not yet been finalized. In the interim, as indicated above, discovery in the case will commence. Judge Hood’s analysis, once it issues, is likely to receive considerable scrutiny, given that over the last several months the DOJ has now reportedly commenced investigations of several other Blue Cross entities as well concerning their use of “most favored nation” clauses. For more information about this topic, please contact the author or any member of the Williams Mullen Antitrust Team.