ST. JAMES — You get in a crash. You get your car repaired. Your mechanic bills the insurance company.

Usually, it ends there.

But for St. James-based Star Windshield, that’s where it began.

The glass repair company would only get part of its bill from insurers and wound up taking them to court to get the rest, starting in 2007. In one case, Star billed Western National Insurance Co. for $742.69 and received $530.45. An arbitrator ruled the insurance company should pay back the difference, plus interest.

After more arbitrations, insurance companies took the company, and others in Minnesota, to court to stop the judgments.

It worked.

Of four district court rulings, three judges sided with the insurance companies, which were arguing their contracts with consumers — drivers, in this case — prohibited them from assigning their contractual rights over to the auto glass companies.

One district court, in Winona, ruled in the glass company’s favor.

The insurance companies’ lawyers asked judges to interpret so-called “anti-assignment” clauses, which are a part of most insurance contracts.

Traditionally, these clauses forbid the policy holder from assigning the benefits of the contract to a third party. A driver cannot, for example, sign up a friend on his policy without notifying the insurance company.

In court, the insurers said the anti-assignment clauses also prevent policy holders from giving the auto glass repairers the right to collect the bill on their behalf.

Judges agreed. The four district court rulings were condensed into two appeals court cases, and the panels sided with the insurers both times.

As one appeals court judge wrote: “That principle is that insurers should not have to do business with parties with which the insurer has not chosen to enter a contractual relationship ... In this case, Star Windshield has attempted to purchase the policyholders’ ability to collect against the insurance company.”

Technical stuff, but the bottom line is that the rulings put on hold the efforts of every auto glass company in the state that was contesting their payments from insurers in court.

They appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which recently reversed the lower courts’ decisions in a unanimous decision.

The court cited state law that lists the following among unfair business practices: “failing to provide payment to the insured’s chosen vendor (emphasis added) based on a competitive price that is fair and reasonable within the industry at large.”

The court concluded the Legislature intended for auto glass vendors to be able to file claims directly against insurers.

But not all glass companies take insurance companies to court.

Kato Glass installer Mike Langer said the company “is not in an adversarial relationship with insurance companies.”

“We normally simply accept the terms the insurance company gives us,” he said.

He said customers become unsettled if their vendor gets in a dispute with the insurance company and wonders whether they’ll have to pay out of pocket.

“After all, it is a simple windshield,” Langer said. “It isn’t surgery. We’d like to simplify it as much as we can.”

Diane Bratvold, an attorney with a Minneapolis firm that represented Western National Insurance Co., said there isn’t an option at this time for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because no federal issue has been raised.

Concerning the ruling itself, she said, “We felt it was important for insurers to continue their relationship with policy holders, not have their rights enforced by a third party.”

Bratvold said consumers should pay attention to the case because “it does shift the balance” between insurers and auto glass companies.

“The reality is the price of auto glass does vary by as much as 100 percent from vendor to vendor,” she said.

And if consumers don’t compare prices on auto glass because they don’t have to pay for it, “that will have a long-term impact on, ultimately, their premiums,” Bratvold said.

“As a consumer, you can be lulled into thinking it doesn’t matter,” she said. “The reality is it will come back if the price doesn’t stay competitive.”