Just to make sure I understand this point, what you're saying is that because the claims insurers receive for collision damage were much more significant than those they receive for glass, they wanted to allocate most of their resources to auto damage rather than glass. They preferred the TPA agreement where a third party, like Safelite, would manage the entire process for glass claims because it wasn't as significant for them. So, they didn't want to allocate resources to it. DId I understand you correctly?

In fact, if you look at the universe of insurers' claims costs, glass and glass-related claims may be only 5%.