ARC Glass

This was to be a windshield replacement through my insurance, thus price is not an issue. The original repair was to be done on Thursday Feb. 17th but the tech arrived with the wrong windshield. Upon investigation, the Insurance company correctly had documented which windshield was to be installed but ARC insisted that they had not been informed. Regardless, I waited around for no reason as the windshield could not be replaced that day. On Friday a different tech arrived with the correct windshield, but when I told him that I wanted to inspect the truck before he started and document all existing scratches or damages he became immediately defensive. I asked him what the problem was and he said, "I don't need the problems". He spoke as if he expected to do some type of damage to my truck and as if I was foolish not to realize and accept that fact. Ultimately, he actually refused to do the job and left. Thus I waited all morning for him to show-up only to still have a cracked windshield. When I spoke to Janice of ARC Glass she supported the techs decision and declined to pursue the job further. So if you want your windshield replaced by a company that is offended if you attempt to document the condition of your car before they touch it, ARC Glass is for you. Perhaps they are accustom to only working on beaters rather than nice cars in good condition?? Or perhaps they just don't want any proof, so that if damage is done by their tech they can deny it? BOTTOM LINE: If you believe in Ronald Reagan's philosophy of "Trust but Verify" then ARC Glass is not for you. ****IN RESPONSE TO ARC's comments (below): It is easy to be in "good standing" if you refuse to do work for customers with high standards. The tech immediately went into a near panic the instant he saw the video camera, not after "some time", and I did not in any way keep him from approaching my truck. In fact, the idea was for us to inspect the truck together with the camera just to document our agreement as to the condition of the truck before he began work. During the inspection some scratches were found in an area where the tech would have been working that I was unaware of. In an effort to ease the tech's obvious anxiety and to point out that the video tape was as much a benefit to him as to me, I did state that I might have thought that those scratches were made by him had we not conducted the inspection. The idea that this supports ARC's point of view baffles me. I understand that people can get nervous if they are being filmed AS THEY WORK. I made it very clear that I was NOT going to tape him while he worked. I was only taping the pre-work inspection. Thus the only rational reason for the tech to object to the video inspection is if he feared that he was going to damage my truck AND he wanted to be able to deny that he caused it by arguing that the damage was there already. Finally, I will point out that ACR blamed the insurance company for having sent out the wrong glass at first; even though it seems most likely that it was ARCs error. Perhaps they have a pattern of denying their mistakes; a practice that my video would have prevented.