Refund Fishing for Insurers: Shops Speak Out on Wilber Group’s Collections Horse Play

by Chasidy Rae Sisk

Imagine: A wife goes to the store and purchases a gallon of milk. She pays the bill and goes home, but weeks later, her husband – who never does the grocery shopping and has no clue what amount is reasonable to pay – writes to the store to demand a partial refund and insists his wife overpaid. Seems pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Yet, the absurdity of a similar situation is less laughable. For the past several years, shops across the country have been receiving communications from the Wilber Group, demanding partial reimbursement for invoices paid to those repair facilities by insurers on behalf of their policyholders. Thus far, the majority of these communications appear to have been made on behalf of Safeco Insurance, a trademark of Liberty Mutual.

The onslaught begins with a letter stating, “We are now handling this claim on behalf of Safeco Insurance. Our client is seeking reimbursement from you as a result of the incident which occurred on the claim date listed below. Your cooperation is required to reach a complete resolution.” The Wilber Group then follows up with calls and emails, purportedly with the intent of intimidating shops to acquiesce to their demands for this so-called “reimbursement.”

“Before I ever heard of the Wilber Group, I started getting letters from them regarding these charges I ‘owed’ without any explanations or justifications,” recounts Jerry McNee (Ultimate Collision Repair; Edison). “Then, they followed up with letters claiming the insurer paid ‘under duress’ – despite the fact that we had negotiated all charges with the carrier before they paid our bill! And this all began months after the services provided were completed and paid for!”

Although Ken Miller (821 Collision; North Haledon) is always willing to work collaboratively with his clients, he did not provide a discount on the services rendered, and he has received similar correspondence from the Wilber Group. “Basically, a vehicle comes into the shop and is either repaired or deemed a total loss. The insurer makes the payment and then hires the Wilber Group to contact the shop months later, insisting that they overpaid for the claim, both in rates and labor time; Wilber’s representative even claimed it was improper to charge for storage prior to the insurer rendering the vehicle a total loss. Prior to paying the invoice, I don’t believe the insurer ever notified the vehicle owner or shop of the specific disputed amount, and we have yet to receive an explanation or breakdown of the amount demanded for reimbursement.”

But Wilber isn’t just honing in on Garden State collision repair shops. Last September, Robert Grieve (Nylund’s Collision Center; Englewood, CO) vented about a total loss that remained in his shop for an entire year during a two-part installment of his popular YouTube series, Airing of GRIEVEances. A customer’s car brought to Nylund’s was deemed a total loss after writing a thorough repair plan, but the insurer disagreed that it was a total loss and insisted it was repairable, so the consumer – advised of this policy protection by Grieve – invoked the Appraisal Clause. Unhappy with the guest invoking that process, the carrier continued to drag their feet for over a year, passing the claim off to multiple adjusters and accumulating a total bill of $30,000. 

During a phone call with a supervisor for the carrier, Grieve was offered $12,900 and ultimately agreed to “split it,” accepting $15,000. The claim was approved by the manager, and the supervisor agreed that the negotiation was “incredibly fair” in the recording played on the episode. Then, the other shoe dropped six months later when Grieve received an email from the Wilber Group, claiming reasonable charges would be $3,610 and requesting payment of $11,390. 

All three shop owners received emails from a “recovery specialist” employed by the Wilber Group; these form letters were identical other than the differing amounts and read, “We are now handling this recovery matter for our client regarding the advanced charges they paid to your company. Our client paid your invoice, under duress, to expedite resolution of the claim with their customer. However, our client determined that the reasonable and customary charges that would be owed in your area would be $xx. We are requesting payment from your company in the amount of $xx, which is the difference between what your company charged and what our client determined was reasonable and customary.”

This wasn’t Grieve’s first rodeo with Wilber; he started receiving letters from them early last year. After receiving their standardized email request this time, he responded with his own form letter…and a little extra flare. In addition to asking questions about how “reasonable and customary” was determined and how the demands could be justified as “collections,” he referenced the recorded conversation in which the insurer’s supervisor agreed to the charges and informed Wilber, “Given that we have a previously recorded agreement with Liberty Mutual in which we reduced our legally owed charges by half in a good faith effort to work with your client, not only do we not owe $11,390, but we are now requesting to be paid for our charges in full which were $30,000, plus another $500 administrative cost because I am spending time re-litigating this after receiving your letter.”

“I recorded that phone call because I knew there was potential for this to happen,” Grieve reports. “It seems unfathomable that they would want their money back, but if they want to play, let’s play – now, I want the whole amount I was rightfully owed in the first place.” Not surprisingly, Grieve hasn’t heard anything else on the matter since his rebuttal to Wilber’s email. 

His experience seems to be par for the course. “In all of my communications with them, they never once responded back to any questions about what the bill is for,” McNee shares. “They just send it to us, and when we reach out, we never get a response, but the notifications keep coming.”

Miller believes these actions are dishonest at best. He engaged the services of his attorney, who responded to Wilber’s email: “The assertions and demand for payment issued to 821 Collision are frivolous and entirely without merit…The amounts invoiced by 821 Collision to its contract counterparty [customer] are entirely reasonable, consistent with industry standards and have been paid without issue by Wausau and other insurers in similar cases. 821 Collision will not accept what Wausau unilaterally deems ‘reasonable and customary charges.’” The attorney also suggested, “Wausau may wish to review New Jersey law governing this claim. Specifically, the New Jersey Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA), N.J.S.A. § 17:29B does not support Wausau’s position.”

Although Wilber’s website identifies them as “one of the nation’s top and most innovative subrogation recovery law firms” that “specializes in recovering funds from at-fault parties,” evidence of their knowledge of the collision repair industry seems to be absent. 

New Jersey Automotive reached out for clarification on the company’s role and experience. We asked:

•  Wilber Group identifies itself as a “subrogation recovery” firm, but subrogation typically indicates a collection of debt owed or an insurer’s right to request reimbursement from an at-fault party. In the instance of seeking reimbursement from collision repair shops, these facilities are neither a debtor that owes money to the insurer nor are they an at-fault party, so how do these situations fall under the category of “subrogation?”

•  The shops we spoke with indicated that their invoices were paid after negotiations with the insurer in question, yet Wilber’s demands for payment claim that these invoices were paid “under duress.” Why did they pay the invoice without indicating that they were doing so under duress, only to seek reimbursement six months later?

•  In reference to the claim that the recoveries were for “advanced charges,” these invoices were submitted and paid for services already rendered. Please explain why these are considered “advanced charges.” 

•  In several instances, shops were informed that the client indicated the amount paid differed from what they found to be “reasonable and customary” charges in that market. What determination is used to identify what is “reasonable and customary?”

•  Can you please clarify what experience/knowledge the Wilber Group has related to the collision repair industry, its need to provide safe and proper repairs for vehicle owners and the amount that those repairs should cost?

At the time of publication, no response has been received.

“Wilber is merely a third-party middleman focused solely on collection efforts with no real understanding of our industry; they lack any understanding of the situation or the negotiations involved and are incapable of answering questions or providing clarity,” McNee says. “They act as administrators, following the insurer’s instructions without providing any valid justification. It’s outrageous that an insurer can negotiate a claim, willingly pay it and then later claim they were under duress – despite showing no signs or mention of it during the negotiation or the payment process. Conducting business this way feels inherently unfair and unprofessional.

“Why even bother negotiating in the first place?” he asks. “If the insurance company and Wilber were acting professionally, these notices should be directed to their policyholders. After all, neither the insurer nor Wilber has any contractual agreement with the repair shop – their agreement is solely with the policyholder. Instead of unfairly targeting the shop, they should address their demands to the person bound by the policy. Throwing a hundred darts at the wall to see what sticks hides transparency from the general public. Let them direct these demands to the policyholders and face the inevitable backlash from consumers.”

“This is essentially an attempt by the insurer to get shops to reimburse them for items like storage and associated fees that they believe should cost less,” Miller suggests. “Then, Wilber proceeds to act like a collection agency, sending notices and even threatening lawsuits.”

But shops should not be intimidated by these unjust and unethical bullying tactics, Grieve insists. “This insurer seems to be operating in bad faith and cannot be trusted. It’s hard to believe that a reputable company would negotiate a claim and go back on their word, but that simply leads to the conclusion that they aren’t so reputable,” he indicates. “But honestly, the insurance carrier doesn’t owe me a thing; they owe their policyholder, my guest. That’s why it’s imperative that shops have an ironclad repair authorization with every guest. Although I never want to sue a guest for payment, I will if necessary…but the insurer doesn’t want that. When I suggested that on a phone call with Wilber, their representative was quick to tell me there was no reason to involve the vehicle owner.”

Grieve consistently responds to Wilber’s “collections” attempts by refusing to pay the amount they request, and they simply “go away. They have yet to try to pursue these matters in court. Of course, they may change course, but I think they’re just trying to rattle some cages and see if anything falls out. It’s a gigantic fishing scheme – they bait and cast the hook, and if they get a bite, great. If not, they go home hungry. Send them home hungry!”

A shop that receives its first notice from Wilber may be shaken, but before sending the reimbursement requested to make the situation go away, Grieve recommends taking a breath. “Don’t be afraid. It’s easy to panic; I might get nervous if I wasn’t confident in what I do and how I do it, but I know who I’ve contracted with, and it isn’t the insurer; I don’t owe them anything, just like they don’t owe me anything.” 

The first step to being prepared for this type of situation begins before ever receiving correspondence from Wilber or any similar agency. “Having a solid work authorization signed by your guest gives you a lot of leverage,” Grieve stresses. “Consult with your lawyer to make sure your repair agreement is ironclad, and ask them about this type of situation in advance. It’s always ideal if you’re prepared ahead of time; you’ll be less anxious if this type of thing actually happens to you. And don’t believe it can’t happen to you because it can.”

When a shop does receive this type of correspondence, Grieve advises shops to contact legal counsel to make sure they understand what their state and local laws allow and whether these activities are supported. “Know what you can and cannot charge for. Be confident about who your contract is with. If the insurer doesn’t owe you and you don’t owe them, how can they come after you for an amount you charged and they paid? You had an agreement which was satisfied, and now they want their money back…how does that make sense? People get wigged out because these requests are coming from a ‘recovery agency,’ but submitting that reimbursement they request is just setting a precedent and emboldening the parties behind this situation. Mind your business, the business of doing the right thing, and stand firm in your convictions.”

Want more? Check out the February 2025 issue of New Jersey Automotive!