Rich Campfield, owner of Ultra Bond Inc., has filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of Order Granting Summary Judgment in the case of Campfield and Ultra
Bond v. State Farm and LYNX Services, which recently was dismissed by
Judge Robert Blackburn in the U.S. District Court of Colorado (see Campfield,
Ultra Bond Lawsuit Against State Farm and LYNX Dismissed and Ultra
Bond, Campfield Will Appeal).
In the Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiff, which is Campfield
both individually and on behalf of his company, ask for "the Court
to revisit certain of its Findings and Conclusions as contrary to the
evidence and law" and request a new trial date be set for the case.
Campfield cites the judge's ruling that "a reasonable fact finder
could not conclude here that the six-inch windshield repair criterion
'affects a significant number of consumers' under the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act ("CCPA") because there is 'no evidence demonstrating
the number of consumers impacted by this practice,'" and notes that
"unlike other prima facie elements of Plaintiffs' claims, these number
calculations were not disputed on summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not
lay out their entire trial presentation in a twenty-page written response,
but only responded to those matters challenged and the arguments made
in Defendants' motions for summary judgment."
Campfield also challenges the rulings of the judge based on mathematical
representations of the number of State Farm insureds, the number of windshield
damage claims and the number of those claims that result in windshield
replacements. Stating that the number of State Farm insured is an "undisputed"
40 million and that the insurer has 28-29 percent of the auto insurance
market. Campfield also states in his Motion for Reconsideration that it
is an undisputed fact "that approximately 1.7 million claims are
made annually for windshield damage to State Farm, and that approximately
66 percent of those claims (or 1.1 million) result in windshield replacements."
Continuing to cite the summary judgment, Campfield points out that exhibits
from both parties and affidavits from his own company show more than 90
percent of windshield cracks are considered long cracks and that 80 percent
of windshield replacements are caused by long cracks not being recognized
"Therefore, by mathematical computation, approximately 800,000 windshields
are replaced at a minimum each year by State Farm due to long crack damage,"
He also contends that his case is one of public interest rather than
private dispute, which is what he argues the Rhino Linings USA Inc. v.
Rocky Mountain Rhino Linings case was, a case cited as precedence.
Additionally, Campfield argues that the records show incidents of "deception"
(under CCPA) and "wrongful interference." He states that while
LYNX Services recommended replacement of a windshield with a long crack
in some cases, a "vast majority of windshield claims" were processed
immediately as a replacement and at trial Campfield and his lawyers are
prepared to have glass shop owners and insureds provide witness testimony
that long crack repairs were never discussed in their conversations with
LYNX. Plaintiffs even go so far as to identify one of the witnesses by
name, a former LYNX CSR named Mr. Lorme, and outline some of his experiences
as detailed in his affidavit.
The Motion for Reconsideration states that in light of Mr. Lorme's affidavit,
"this Court should not have concluded that a reasonable fact finder
'could not find that State Farm or LYNX knowingly or intentionally concealed
the nature of State Farm's coverage' and that they 'simply recommend a
particular coverage option' when the documentary and testimonial evidence
will show that no recommendation is made and a replacement is presumed."
Plaintiffs further argue that "Insurance companies and their administrators,
and even auto repair shops, possess special knowledge and expertise that
most citizens do not possess and upon which citizens must rely."
Plaintiffs also cite the court's lack of ruling on two rule objections
directly addressing the issues that the Order to Grant Summary Judgment
indicated they had not yet produced. Plaintiffs argue that "for the
detailed reasons stated in the Objections, Defendants should not have
withheld the names of witnesses and related evidence regarding the State
Farm O&A Contracts that then could have been provided to this Court
- instead of this Court reaching the conclusion that there was 'no evidence'
or insufficient proof of wrongful interference or deceptive effects of
HERE to read the full Motion for Reconsideration.
HERE to discuss the case on the AGRR message boards.
No reproduction, in print, electronic or any form without the expressed written permission of
Key Communications Inc. 540-720-5584.