Lynx Services Files Motion to Quash Subpoena from Safelite in Connecticut Anti-Steering Case

Lynx Services has filed a motion in the U.S. Western District Court of Pennsylvania to quash a subpoena served on the company by Safelite Group and Safelite Solutions involving the Connecticut lawsuit over the state’s new anti-steering law. “The subpoena demands the production of documents that go to the very heart of Lynx’s business operations,” according to court documents filed by Lynx.

“Safelite is Lynx’s primary competitor in the auto glass claims administration business,” Lynx’s attorney writes. “However, there is a significant difference between the business operations of Safelite and Lynx. In addition to providing claims management services, Safelite also owns a substantial number of auto glass shops. In fact, according to the complaint Safelite filed in the underlying lawsuit, Safelite is the largest vehicle glass repair and replacement service organization in the United States, with over 4,000 technicians serving more than 4.5 million customers each year.”

On or about July 22, 2014, Safelite served a subpoena to produce documents on Lynx in Pittsburgh, Pa.

“The Safelite subpoena instructs Lynx to produce documents showing (a) the substance of Lynx’s communications with policyholders, including all scripts or similar materials; (b) when and how Lynx provides names of auto glass repair shops to policyholders; (c) Lynx’s contractual agreements or other relationships with auto glass repair shops in Connecticut; (d) the total number of auto glass claims processed for policyholders in Connecticut to whom Lynx provided claims administration services and the total number of policyholders in Connecticut covered by insurers to whom Lynx provides claims administration services; (e) documents concerning the efforts to enact PA 13-67 and the expected or intended benefits of the act; and (f) any complaints, investigations or inquires related to steering or failure to honor customer choice,” according to Lynx’s attorney.

“[T]here is no connection between any of the requested documents and the claims at issue in the Connecticut Lawsuit, which relate solely to a statute that does not even apply to Lynx,” the company’s attorney claims.

“[S]afelite’s requests are not a good-faith effort calculated to lead the discovery of relevant evidence, and instead resemble an improper attempt to engage in a fishing expedition into Lynx’s sensitive and conditional information,” Lynx’s attorney argues.

In response, Judge Mark Hornak issued an order deferring ruling on the motion to quash, asking Lynx to file an amended motion “demonstrating why this judicial district is the proper district for disposition of this motion, in that neither the subpoena nor the motion to quash appear to facially state that this is the judicial district in which compliance is to occur.

“The obligation to comply with the subpoena at issue is held in abeyance pending this court’s disposition of the motion to quash unless otherwise ordered by this court or the court in which the underlying action is pending,” he continued.

To read the court papers, including a copy of the subpoena Safelite served on Lynx, click here.

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

4 Responses to Lynx Services Files Motion to Quash Subpoena from Safelite in Connecticut Anti-Steering Case

  1. Joseph Gore says:

    INVESTIGATE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. THEY ARE ALLOWING SAFELITE TO STEER CUSTOMERS INTO THIER SHOPS. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN INSTRUCT SAFELITE TO REFER TO ALL AFFILIATE SHOPS, BUT THEY DON’T. WHY? THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON HERE. FOLLOW THE MONEY AND I BET THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE IN CAHOOTS WITH SAFELITE. WE USED TO CALL THAT PRICE-FIXING.

  2. J.W. says:

    We know for a fact that a Safelite sales rep. has told more than just a few insurance agents that they had to use them.

    Some said they called this certain Insurance company and they said yes you do. Now, what do we normal

    American people call that? If Our Department of Justice & the F.B.I. ever followed the money they would find

    more than just kickbacks. This all should be on the federal level, not just one state.

  3. Pingback: Attorney Representing a Connecticut AGRR Company Responds to Safelite Subpoena | glassBYTEs.com

  4. L.R. says:

    I know for an absolute fact that Safelite Solutions trains all CSRs that steering is 100% illegal, they even have legal scripting (WHICH IS REQUIRED TO READ) to avoid such things. CSRs are not allowed to tell any customer that they “cannot use a shop of their choosing” and in fact tell them they have the right to choose any shop they wish.

    Often times it’s those Safelite CSRs who have to explain to an insured, insurance agent and even another shop, that they can legally go anywhere they wish and “XYZ” glass shop or insurance agent who told the customer that they HAD to use “XYZ” was wrong.

    Safelite Solutions honors an insured’s choice without hassle, and if any CSR DOES steer a customer they don’t get to keep their jobs! Steering is not tolerated at Safelite Solutions. All CSRs know that calls are recorded and monitored, and can be subject to subpoena, therefore are required to read all legal scripting verbatim, no exceptions.

Leave a Reply to Joseph Gore Cancel reply

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