An Addition Made to the Campfield v. Safelite Lawsuit

The Campfield v. Safelite suit has gone back and forth in court for years, between additional evidence to rescheduling court dates. In late September, Safelite requested to seal a document in hopes of restricting what information is made available to the public.

“Safelite respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and award Safelite its costs and attorneys’ fees and any other relief the Court deems proper,” reads an excerpt from the document. However, the court ordered Safelite file a redacted version for the public.

The document includes initial claims, counter claims, along with allegation responses from Safelite. One portion of the document nearing its end, refers to a counterclaim referencing trade secrets and the company’s policy for its workers.

“Counterclaim-Defendants have used improper means to appropriate Safelite’s confidential and proprietary trade secret information for themselves and for the benefit of others. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Counterclaim- Defendants, Safelite has and continues to suffer damages in an amount that is not now presently ascertainable, but exceeds $75,000.00 and will be established at trial,” reads an excerpt from the document.

The Southern District of Ohio case began in 2015 when Rich Campfield, founder of Ultra Bond in Grand Junction, Colo., alleged Safelite’s advertising was misleading. Campfield’s original claim was that a large portion, if not most, of the market for his products was eliminated due to Safelite’s policy against repairing longer windshield cracks.

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

1 Response to An Addition Made to the Campfield v. Safelite Lawsuit

  1. Pingback: Campfield Files Motion to Dismiss Safelite’s Counterclaim | glassBYTEs.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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