Colorado auto glass insurance laws and the hail claims environment

Colorado ranks second nationally for hail insurance claims and operates under one of the more consumer-protective auto glass regulatory frameworks in the country — yet significant gaps in enforcement, ADAS calibration coverage, and insurer behavior during storm surges create real risks for policyholders. The state's primary glass statute, CRS § 10-4-613, explicitly prohibits insurer steering and guarantees consumers the right to choose their own glass shop. Combined with robust bad faith penalties under CRS §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 — including doubled damages and attorney fees — Colorado law gives consumers powerful tools on paper. But Colorado's position at the epicenter of "Hail Alley," where the Front Range absorbs 7–9 significant hail days per year and billions in annual insured losses, creates a claims environment where insurer cost-containment tactics frequently test those protections. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of all eight areas relevant to windshield repair and auto glass services in Colorado.

CRS § 10-4-613 is Colorado's foundational auto glass statute

Colorado's regulatory framework for auto glass claims rests on several interlocking statutes within CRS Title 10. The single most important provision is CRS § 10-4-613 (Glass Repair and Replacement), enacted in 1992 through HB 92-1275. This statute addresses anti-steering, consumer choice, and deductible waivers in a single section, making it the starting point for any glass claim dispute in Colorado.

CRS § 10-4-613(1) establishes four core prohibitions. No insurer may require that auto glass work be performed by a particular facility as a condition of claim payment. No insurer may fail to pay for glass repair or replacement by the insured's chosen vendor. No insurer may engage in intimidation, coercion, or threats to direct a policyholder to a specific shop. And no insurer may offer deductible rebates as an incentive to use a particular vendor. The statute does permit insurers to limit payments to a "fair competitive price" — a critical qualification that gives insurers latitude to cap reimbursement rates while still complying with the anti-steering mandate.

CRS § 10-4-613(2) permits (but does not require) insurers to waive the deductible for glass repairs, stating: "an insurance company may agree to pay the full cost of glass repair, notwithstanding any applicable deductible." The word "may" is decisive — this is a permissive provision, not a mandate.

Beyond the glass-specific statute, several general insurance provisions apply directly to glass claims:

CRS § 10-3-1104(1)(h) — Colorado's Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act — prohibits misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to promptly acknowledge and investigate claims, refusing to pay claims without reasonable investigation, and compelling insureds to litigate by offering substantially less than amounts ultimately recovered. Critically, CRS § 10-3-1104(1)(l) makes any violation of Part 6, Article 4 (which includes § 10-4-613) itself an unfair practice, creating a direct enforcement linkage between the glass statute and the unfair practices framework.

Colorado Regulation 5-1-14 (3 CCR 702-5-1-14) establishes specific claim handling timelines: insurers must make a decision and/or pay benefits within 60 days of receiving a valid and complete claim. Failure triggers 8% annual interest on benefits due (for claims over $100), and the Commissioner may assess $100 per day in civil penalties for each day beyond 60 days. If a claim remains unpaid at 60 days, the insurer must immediately notify the policyholder and send written updates every 30 days thereafter. A catastrophe exception allows insurers to request deviations during major events — directly relevant to Colorado's hail season.

CRS § 10-4-619 mandates liability insurance (25/50/15 minimums) but does not mandate comprehensive coverage. Glass coverage, which falls under comprehensive, is therefore optional — though lenders typically require it for financed or leased vehicles.

Colorado Regulation 5-2-12 prohibits insurers from canceling, nonrenewing, increasing premiums, or reducing coverage based on comprehensive claims unless the loss resulted from the insured's negligence. This means filing a glass or hail claim should not trigger adverse rating actions — a protection reinforced by CRS § 10-4-628, which bars insurers from removing safe-driver discounts for not-at-fault claims including hail damage.

Colorado does not have glass-specific claim handling timelines distinct from its general property and casualty rules. The 60-day timeline under Regulation 5-1-14 and the "reasonably prompt" standards under § 10-3-1104(1)(h) apply equally to glass and all other first-party property claims.

Colorado does not mandate zero-deductible glass coverage

Unlike Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina, Colorado does not require zero-deductible windshield or glass coverage. Standard comprehensive deductibles apply to glass claims. Zero-deductible glass coverage is available only as an optional add-on endorsement, purchased for an additional premium, from most major insurers operating in Colorado.

In practice, most major carriers — including State Farm, GEICO, Progressive, Allstate, USAA, Farmers, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, and American Family — offer optional zero-deductible or low-deductible glass endorsements in Colorado. Many insurers also voluntarily waive deductibles for minor chip repairs (as opposed to full replacements) because a $50–$75 repair prevents a future $300–$1,500 replacement, making the waiver economically rational for the insurer.

The three states that mandate zero-deductible glass coverage provide useful contrast. Florida (FL Stat § 627.7288) covers only the front windshield, excluding side and rear glass. Kentucky (KRS § 304.20-060) covers all auto glass plus lights (defined as "safety equipment"), and has done so for policies issued after January 1, 1979. South Carolina (SC Code § 38-77-280(B)) covers all automobile safety glass. Five additional states — Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York — require insurers to offer optional zero-deductible glass coverage but do not mandate it. Colorado falls into the largest category: approximately 42 states where standard deductibles apply and zero-deductible glass is purely optional.

Some Colorado auto glass companies have claimed that CRS § 10-4-613 requires insurers to "offer the option" of zero-deductible glass coverage. The actual statutory text does not support this reading. The statute says insurers "may" agree to waive deductibles — it does not compel them to offer this option. No Division of Insurance bulletin or regulation imposing such a requirement was identified in this research, though the possibility of an unpublished DOI interpretation cannot be entirely excluded. No pending Colorado legislation mandating zero-deductible glass coverage was identified for the 2025 or 2026 legislative sessions.

The Front Range is ground zero for American hail damage

Colorado sits at the heart of "Hail Alley" — the region spanning the tri-state junction of Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming that NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory identifies as averaging 7 to 9 hail days per year, the highest concentration in North America. The I-25 corridor from Fort Collins through Denver to Pueblo concentrates both the state's most severe hail activity and its densest population, creating a uniquely destructive combination.

Colorado ranks second nationally for hail insurance claims, behind only Texas (a state with nearly six times Colorado's population). NICB data from ISO ClaimSearch for 2017–2019 shows Colorado generated 380,066 hail loss claims versus Texas's 637,977, with Nebraska a distant third at 161,374. On a per-capita basis, Colorado's hail exposure is even more striking: the state averages approximately $1,988 in hail damage per 100 residents annually, ranking second nationally. Three Colorado cities — Denver (51,887 claims), Colorado Springs (38,044), and Aurora — rank among the nation's top 10 cities for hail loss claims.

The raw frequency data is staggering. Colorado averages approximately 414 hailstorms annually per NOAA data, with the damaging hail season running from mid-April through mid-September and peak activity concentrated in May through August. The Front Range corridor typically experiences 3–4 catastrophic hail events (each exceeding $25 million in insured damage) per year. In 2023 alone, Colorado saw nearly 800 reports of hail exceeding 1 inch in diameter. Reports of baseball-sized hail (over 3 inches) surged from 12 in 2019 to 34 in 2023, roughly tripling. Colorado's largest recorded hailstone — 4.83 inches in diameter, 8.5 ounces — was certified by NCEI near Bethune on August 13, 2019.

The financial toll is enormous. Over the past decade, hailstorms have caused more than $5 billion in insured damage in Colorado alone, per the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association (RMIIA). State Farm data illustrates the claim volume dynamics: in 2018, Colorado was the #1 state nationally for State Farm wind and hail losses, with policyholders filing 66,800 claims totaling $598 million (including 42,414 auto claims worth $218 million). That represented a 57% increase over 2017's already-massive 47,500 claims and $436 million.

Colorado's costliest single hail event remains the May 8, 2017 Denver metro storm, which generated $2.3 billion in insured losses from approximately 267,000 claims — including 167,000 auto claims totaling $873 million. This storm produced baseball-sized hail (up to 2.75 inches) along the I-70/I-25 corridors from Golden through Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, and downtown Denver. It was the first disaster in Colorado history to exceed $1 billion and more than tripled the prior state record. Subsequent major events include the June 2018 northern Front Range storm ($2.2 billion), the June 2023 Morrison/Red Rocks event (part of a $5.5 billion multi-state outbreak that injured over 90 people at a concert), and the May 2024 Denver storm ($3.0 billion in estimated losses per NCEI).

These storm surges create severe capacity constraints. Denver-area glass and hail repair shops report processing 300+ vehicles per month during peak season, with wait times stretching from days to weeks or months after major events. The May 2017 storm generated thousands of windshield replacements alongside vehicle total losses. Post-storm adjuster wait times also stretch to several weeks. After the 2017 event, Colorado drivers reported 22%+ auto insurance premium increases statewide in subsequent renewals. Hail is the number one driver of insurance claims in Colorado, outpacing wildfires, according to RMIIA Executive Director Carole Walker.

Insurer cost-containment intensifies during hail surges

The sheer volume of claims generated by Colorado's hail season — hundreds of thousands of claims compressed into a few months — creates powerful incentives for insurers to aggressively manage costs. Several well-documented tactics emerge during high-volume periods.

Steering to preferred shops remains pervasive despite CRS § 10-4-613's explicit prohibition. Colorado auto glass shops report that insurers routinely provide "preferred provider" lists and may direct claimants to specific shops for inspections and assessments. The distinction between a lawful "recommendation" and unlawful "steering" is often blurry in practice. When an insurer tells a policyholder it can "guarantee" faster service or a seamless experience at a preferred shop, the practical effect is steering — even if the insurer technically doesn't "require" it.

Aftermarket glass defaults are standard practice. Unless a policyholder carries an OEM endorsement, Colorado insurers commonly default to aftermarket glass in claim settlements. Aftermarket windshields cost 20–40% less than OEM equivalents, creating strong insurer preference. Colorado Front Range windshield replacement prices already average 5–10% higher than the national average due to demand from hail and construction debris, further incentivizing insurers to specify cheaper parts.

Reimbursement rate suppression affects independent shops disproportionately. Independent auto glass shops nationally report being required to accept below-market rates when joining third-party administrator (TPA) networks. Shop owners report that prices are dictated by the TPA, with shops forced to either accept the rates or be excluded from the network — effectively being characterized as "less than preferred" to consumers.

Claim processing delays are well-documented during surge periods. Multiple Colorado insurance law firms report that insurers "drag their feet and delay investigating or processing claims" during hail season, particularly after catastrophic events. Common tactics include denying claims without proper investigation, offering unreasonably low settlements, claiming damage was pre-existing, and requiring duplicative documentation. The 2017 catastrophe's 267,600 combined claims created processing backlogs that extended for months.

The Safelite Solutions conflict of interest represents perhaps the most structurally significant issue in the auto glass claims ecosystem. Safelite Group operates both Safelite Solutions (a TPA managing auto glass claims for 200+ insurance carriers) and Safelite AutoGlass (the nation's largest retail auto glass company). Both are subsidiaries of Belron, the world's largest vehicle glass company. This dual role means the entity routing claims to shops also operates competing shops. In July 2025, State Farm switched its TPA from LYNX Services to Safelite Solutions — a major industry development. Notably, State Farm's prior contract with LYNX contained a clause allowing termination if LYNX acquired an equity interest in a retail glass company, precisely the conflict Safelite embodies. Within days of the switch, industry sources reported alleged steering of claims away from independent shops. In April 2025, the Independent Glass Association filed an antitrust complaint against Safelite Group with the FTC Bureau of Competition, arguing the dual TPA/retailer role creates monopolistic market power. Safelite has faced significant legal exposure nationally: whistleblower settlements of $19.4 million in California and $7.56 million in Illinois stemmed from allegations related to these practices.

Consumer choice is protected but "fair competitive price" creates friction

Colorado's anti-steering protections under CRS § 10-4-613 are among the strongest in the nation for auto glass specifically. Notably, Colorado limits its anti-steering statute to glass repair and replacement vendors rather than applying it to general auto body work — placing it alongside Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, and Wisconsin as states with glass-specific anti-steering provisions.

The consumer's right to choose is clear: an insurer must pay for glass work performed by the insured's chosen vendor, cannot condition payment on using a preferred shop, cannot use intimidation or coercion to influence shop choice, and cannot offer deductible rebates to incentivize using a particular vendor. However, the statute's "fair competitive price" qualification creates a persistent tension. Insurers may cap reimbursement at what they determine is a fair competitive rate, potentially leaving the consumer responsible for any difference if their chosen shop charges more. This qualification is the primary mechanism through which insurers exert economic pressure on shop choice without technically violating the anti-steering provision.

Aftermarket glass regulation in Colorado operates through disclosure rather than prohibition. Under CRS §§ 10-3-1301 through 10-3-1307 (Colorado's Quality Replacement Parts Act), insurers may specify aftermarket (non-OEM) crash parts but must provide written disclosure on the repair estimate clearly identifying each non-OEM part. The estimate must include a standardized notice in 10-point or larger type informing the consumer that parts are supplied by a source other than the vehicle manufacturer and that warranties are provided by the parts manufacturer rather than the vehicle maker. Colorado does not ban aftermarket parts, does not require aftermarket parts to meet OEM quality standards, and does not require OEM parts for newer vehicles. The Colorado DOI has stated it "cannot determine who is reasonable" when disputes arise over OEM versus aftermarket repair procedures, noting that "there's no law that says an insurer has to meet manufacturer specifications, just the condition before a loss."

No published Colorado appellate case law was found specifically addressing auto glass steering disputes under CRS § 10-4-613. This appears to be an area where disputes are typically resolved at the DOI complaint level, through informal resolution, or in small claims court rather than generating appellate decisions.

Colorado's bad faith statutes give consumers potent but underused remedies

When a glass claim is improperly handled, Colorado consumers have access to an unusually powerful set of remedies. The process involves multiple escalation paths, from DOI complaints through statutory bad faith litigation.

CRS § 10-3-1115 establishes that an insurer shall not unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits. The standard is straightforward: delay or denial is unreasonable if done "without a reasonable basis." This is a lower bar than common-law bad faith, which requires proving the insurer both acted unreasonably and knew or recklessly disregarded that its conduct was unreasonable. CRS § 10-3-1116 provides the remedy: a first-party claimant may bring an action in district court to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs plus two times the covered benefit. Under American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Barriga (2018 CO 42), the Colorado Supreme Court confirmed that a plaintiff can recover both breach-of-contract damages (1x the benefit) and statutory bad faith damages (2x the benefit) for an effective total of three times the covered benefit. Even if the insurer eventually pays the claim, the 2x statutory penalty still applies for unreasonable delay, per Nibert v. GEICO Casualty Co. (2017 COA 23).

For a windshield replacement costing $500–$1,500, the penalty exposure under these statutes reaches $1,500–$4,500 plus attorney fees — a powerful deterrent that makes it economically viable for attorneys to take glass claim cases that would otherwise be too small to litigate. Key Colorado case law shaping these remedies includes:

Kisselman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (292 P.3d 964, Colo. App. 2011) — established that §§ 10-3-1115/1116 impose a statutory standard different from and in addition to common-law bad faith, with a less onerous burden of proof.

Dale v. Guaranty National Insurance Co. (948 P.2d 545, Colo. 1997) — held that bad faith must be assessed based on the insurer's entire course of conduct, and that practices prohibited by statute illustrate conduct the legislature considers contrary to public policy.

Skillett v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance (2022 CO 12) — held that individual adjusters cannot be held personally liable under §§ 10-3-1115/1116; only the insurance company itself is liable.

Andres Trucking Co. v. United Fire & Casualty Co. (2018 COA 144) — confirmed that completing the appraisal process does not preclude breach-of-contract or statutory bad faith claims, since appraisal determines value only, not insurer liability for bad faith.

The appraisal process is available in most Colorado auto insurance policies as a contractual dispute resolution mechanism. Each party selects an independent appraiser; if the two appraisers cannot agree, they select an umpire, and agreement by any two of the three is binding. The process addresses only valuation — not coverage or causation disputes. For glass claims, the appraisal process may be impractical given the cost of hiring an appraiser relative to the claim value, though it remains a theoretical option.

Filing a DOI complaint is often the most practical first step. Consumers can contact the DOI Consumer Services Team at 303-894-7490 or file online through doi.colorado.gov/for-consumers/file-a-complaint. The DOI gives insurers 20 days to research and respond. If a violation is found, the DOI can require payment, impose civil penalties, issue cease-and-desist orders, or suspend or revoke an insurer's license. For FY 2023–24, the DOI recovered $4,995,340 specifically for auto insurance consumers and $26.5 million across all lines.

Court options include small claims court (jurisdiction up to $7,500 under CRS § 13-6-403), county court (up to $25,000 under CRS § 13-6-105), and district court for statutory bad faith claims under § 10-3-1116. For straightforward underpayment disputes without bad faith allegations, small claims is practical. For claims seeking doubled damages plus attorney fees, district court is the designated forum.

ADAS calibration is a growing battleground with no Colorado-specific guidance

The rapid proliferation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems has created a new and increasingly contentious front in glass claims. When a windshield is replaced — whether due to hail damage or any other cause — the forward-facing cameras and sensors mounted on or near the glass must be recalibrated to manufacturer specifications. The Auto Glass Safety Council warns that if camera aim is off by just one degree, the collision avoidance system will be off by 8 feet at 100 feet of distance — a potentially lethal margin of error. No current vehicle ADAS system can calibrate itself; specialized equipment and trained technicians are required.

The scope of this issue has expanded dramatically. 89% of model-year 2023 and newer vehicles require calibration following windshield replacement, up from just 25% for model-year 2016 vehicles. In 2022, 11 of the top 15 manufacturers produced over 95% of their vehicles with forward-facing cameras. Calibration costs typically range from $250 to $600, though complex systems or luxury vehicles can exceed $1,000. In Colorado, calibration adds $150–$500 to windshield replacement costs for post-2015 vehicles.

The insurance coverage picture is mixed. A "Who Pays for What?" survey by Collision Advice found that 87% of shops report being "always or almost always" reimbursed for ADAS calibration charges. However, shops also report significant friction: documentation demands, pre-authorization requirements, caps on calibration payments, partial approvals, and outright denials. Some policies cover glass replacement but do not explicitly mention calibration, creating ambiguity that insurers exploit. Common insurer resistance tactics include requiring extensive documentation before approving calibration, imposing payment caps below market rates, and being slow to adapt internal systems to the increasing prevalence of ADAS.

Colorado has not enacted specific ADAS calibration legislation and the Colorado DOI has not issued any bulletin or regulatory guidance specifically addressing ADAS calibration costs in insurance claims. This represents a notable regulatory gap given Colorado's extreme hail exposure and the correspondingly high volume of windshield replacements. At least 17 states have enacted some form of ADAS calibration regulation as of early 2026, including Maryland (HB 920, which also prohibits insurer steering of glass claims), Arizona (SB 1410, imposing $2,500 per-violation fines), and Utah. At the federal level, H.R. 6688 (the ADAS Functionality and Integrity Act) would direct NHTSA to publish calibration guidelines but has not yet passed.

The intersection of aftermarket glass and ADAS calibration is where consumer safety risk is highest — and where insurer cost-cutting during hail surges creates the greatest danger. Major automakers have issued position statements opposing aftermarket glass for ADAS-equipped vehicles. GM states it "does not approve the use of aftermarket or non-Genuine GM glass," warning that specifications may not meet ADAS standards. Hyundai, Ford, and Honda have issued similar statements. A 2023 study found OEM windshields offered 12% better optical clarity in the ADAS camera zone and were associated with 23% fewer calibration issues. Auto glass technicians frequently report that when ADAS calibration repeatedly fails, the problem resolves when the aftermarket windshield is replaced with OEM glass. Camera mounting brackets on aftermarket windshields may be incorrectly positioned or manufactured from plastic that deforms under camera-generated heat, causing misalignment. When insurers push aftermarket glass during high-volume hail events — as they routinely do in Colorado — they may be creating downstream calibration failures that compromise vehicle safety.

The AGSC updated its AGRSS Standard (ANSI/AGSC/AGRSS 005-2022) to specifically require that those performing automotive glass replacement use only equipment designed for calibration when required by the vehicle manufacturer, and that technicians performing calibration be qualified through comprehensive training. NCOIL adopted a Motor Vehicle Glass Act Model in early 2025 requiring shops to notify consumers about ADAS calibration needs and provide itemized invoices showing calibration status — though the Independent Glass Association argues the model unfairly favors insurers.

DOI enforcement exists but glass-specific actions are scarce

The Colorado Division of Insurance maintains a comprehensive enforcement apparatus but has published relatively few actions specifically targeting auto glass claim violations. The most directly relevant regulatory action is Bulletin B-5.54, issued October 21, 2025, which addresses the practice of auto repair shops waiving insurance deductibles to secure business. The bulletin directs insurers not to participate in or condone deductible-waiver arrangements, requires insurers to clearly communicate that deductibles are the policyholder's contractual responsibility, and mandates that insurers evaluate whether deductible waivers constitute fraud under CRS §§ 10-1-128 and 10-4-1003. This bulletin directly targets a common practice in the auto glass industry where shops advertise "zero out-of-pocket" by absorbing deductibles.

Beyond B-5.54, no DOI bulletins specifically addressing ADAS calibration, aftermarket glass quality standards, anti-steering enforcement specific to glass, or hail-specific auto claim handling practices were identified in the current bulletin archive. The DOI does regularly issue consumer advisories during hail season — including a June 24, 2025 advisory preparing metro Denver residents for an incoming hailstorm — but these are informational rather than regulatory.

The DOI's enforcement toolkit is substantial. Fines range from $500 to $5,000 per violation, with willful violations reaching $30,000 per violation. In extreme cases, the DOI can suspend or revoke an insurer's license. Tools include cease-and-desist orders, stipulated agreements, and final agency orders. The DOI conducts market conduct examinations under CRS § 10-1-305, with modernized procedures enacted through HB17-1231. However, no specific market conduct examinations targeting auto glass claims or comprehensive claims practices were identified through publicly available records.

Consumer complaint data provides indirect evidence of the claims environment. In FY 2023–24, the DOI received 6,987 total complaints and inquiries, including 3,829 property and casualty complaints. The DOI recovered $26.5 million for consumers, with $19.25 million in P&C and $4.99 million in auto insurance specifically. A notable case study: an apartment complex that filed a hail claim in July 2023 and received no settlement by November filed a DOI complaint, resulting in an insurer payment of $2,657,730 within three weeks of DOI intervention. The DOI does not publicly break out complaint data for auto glass specifically — glass claims fall under the broader auto insurance or comprehensive claims category — and no published data specifically isolating hail-season complaint spikes was found.

The absence of glass-specific enforcement actions likely reflects several factors: most glass claim disputes involve relatively small dollar amounts that are resolved at the complaint level rather than escalating to formal enforcement; the DOI's position that it "cannot determine who is reasonable" in OEM-versus-aftermarket disputes limits its willingness to intervene in parts-quality questions; and the lack of specific ADAS calibration regulations means the DOI has limited regulatory hooks for addressing calibration coverage denials.

Conclusion

Colorado's auto glass insurance framework presents a paradox: strong statutory protections coexist with structural enforcement gaps that leave consumers vulnerable, particularly during hail season. CRS § 10-4-613 provides clear anti-steering rights, and CRS §§ 10-3-1115/1116 create unusually powerful bad faith remedies including treble damages. But the absence of zero-deductible mandates, ADAS calibration regulations, aftermarket glass quality standards, and glass-specific DOI enforcement actions means much of the consumer protection framework depends on individual policyholders knowing and asserting their rights — or hiring attorneys to do so.

Three gaps deserve particular attention. First, Colorado's lack of any ADAS calibration regulation or DOI guidance is increasingly untenable as 89% of new vehicles require post-replacement calibration and insurer resistance to covering these costs persists. Second, the Safelite Solutions dual role as TPA and competing glass provider creates a structural conflict of interest that Colorado's anti-steering statute was not designed to address, as the entity routing claims also operates shops — a problem magnified during hail surges when claims volume peaks. Third, the "fair competitive price" qualification in CRS § 10-4-613 gives insurers significant latitude to suppress reimbursement rates below actual market costs, effectively undermining the consumer's right to choose a shop by making that choice financially punitive.

For consumers navigating this landscape, the most actionable protections are: purchasing optional zero-deductible glass coverage before hail season; confirming ADAS calibration coverage with their insurer before authorizing work; exercising their statutory right to choose their own glass shop; requesting OEM glass in writing (and understanding the insurer may not cover the cost difference); and filing DOI complaints promptly when claims are delayed beyond 60 days or when steering behavior occurs. Colorado's bad faith statutes make even small glass claims economically viable to litigate — a fact that serves as the ultimate backstop in a market where insurer behavior frequently pushes against the boundaries of what the law allows.