To hear Mike Rivera tell it, the services provided by his company, Fire Recovery USA, are old news. But to many in the insurance industry, Rivera’s company is bringing a new and dangerous trend to Massachusetts.

Fire Recovery USA, based in California, will partner with the city of Quincy to collect bills on behalf of the fire department. Through an ordinance passed by the city council in August, anytime the fire department responds to a car accident, the insurer of the at-fault party will get a bill.

It’s become a matter of necessity for many municipalities, said Rivera, chief business development officer for the company. Their budgets are squeezed, but they don’t want to cut services and they don’t want to raise taxes. The solution, then, is to bill the person responsible.

“I don’t think anybody’s excited about it,” he added, acknowledging that it was an unpleasant choice for Quincy to have to make.

Calling The Bluff

Since the city began considering the ordinance, the idea has caused a flurry of consternation and confusion in Massachusetts insurance circles. Some insurers question whether they could legally be forced to pay for these types of services, and say that if they are indeed forced to pay up, consumers will suffer. They say these types of fire responses – which occur even in accidents without fires, and run in the hundreds to thousands of dollars per accident – will create pricing pressures that would force them to pass higher premiums onto their customers.

That’s a bluff, Rivera said: In the 20 years that organizations such as his have been in business, no insurance company’s premium increase has been blamed specifically on the services. And although tight budgets have forced more municipalities to turn to this solution, Rivera said many states accepted the concept long ago.

Still, that’s small comfort to the industry here in the commonwealth. Quincy appears to be the first city or town to adopt the idea, and although the ordinance said the costs apply to any fire department services performed at the scene of a crash, it doesn’t specify what qualifies as a “service.” It does, however, put the fire chief in charge of creating procedures to recover these costs and declares that the city is in charge of collecting the money if the responsible party fails to pay.

As of press time, Quincy Fire Chief Joseph Barron did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Because the ordinance is new and thus far untested, some insurers are puzzled as to how they could be held responsible for paying fire engine responses.

Although the company hasn’t made an official conclusion on the subject yet, Doug Bailey, spokesman for Quincy-based Arbella Insurance, noted that most auto insurance policies covered damages, not emergency response. In that case, it seems unlikely that the fire department could justify charging an insurer for these services.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Frank O’Brien, Boston-based vice president of government relations for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, also acknowledged that there were many details yet to be worked out.

“The language of the Quincy ordinance is big enough to drive a very expensive ladder truck through,” O’Brien said.

But even with the fine print still hazy, its implications are troubling. Insurance companies, if deemed responsible, would indeed raise their customers’ premiums, O’Brien insisted. But aside from the practical issues, it raises serious public policy questions.

Emergency response is a core public service, said Mary Maguire, Massachusetts spokeswoman for AAA, which is opposed to billing at-fault parties for car accidents.

“People are already paying taxes, presumably, to cover the costs of emergency services,” she said. In addition, the person responsible for the accident has no control over how fire departments react, and therefore has no control over how big a fee they’re potentially assessed.

What’s more, Maguire said, the rule could make motorists unwilling to call for help if they believe they’re going to be charged a fee, creating a chilling effect even for people who need assistance.

Rivera reiterated that although Massachusetts is wrestling with these questions for what appears to be the first time, the system has worked – and worked well – for years in many other states. Many insurance policies cover emergency responses, and Fire Recovery USA has been working with municipalities for years to keep budgets in line.

“We’re just trying to keep our fire department doors open.”