Connecticut Officials Respond to Safelite’s Allegations in Anti-Steering Case

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, commissioner of the state insurance department, deny that Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work) “unconstitutionally prohibits plaintiffs’ [Safelite’s] commercial speech or otherwise violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights” in court documents filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. Judge Janet Bond Arterton also scheduled oral arguments for the case to take place on December 2, 2013 at 3 p.m. in Courtroom Two of Connecticut U.S. District Court.

PA 13-67, which the governor approved in early June, “requires initial communications between a glass claims representative or a third-party claims administrator of an insurance company doing business in Connecticut and the company’s insured about automotive glass works or products to inform the insured about his or her right to choose where to have the work done.”

Safelite officials took issue with the public act and have asked the court for an injunction halting enforcement. Safelite also filed suit against the Connecticut Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner.

Attorneys on behalf of the of the state attorney general and insurance commissioner deny that the public act “compels Safelite to ‘make potentially false and misleading statements about other glass shops.’ … The defendants deny that Public Act 13-67 and section 38a-354 of the Connecticut General Statutes ‘unconstitutionally restrict Safelite’s ability to engage in truthful, non-misleading commercial speech about the quality of its automotive glass repair services and its benefits compared to other glass shops.’”

Attorneys go on to “deny that the plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief for which they have prayed” in court documents.

Safelite had asked the U.S. District Court of Connecticut in August to “enjoin and declare invalid the portions of a recently enacted Connecticut statute.”

Expedited discovery for the case is scheduled to conclude today, September 25 and state officials’ opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled to be to the court by September 30. Safelite has until October 18 to respond to the opposition.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *