Campfield v. Safelite Lawsuit Partially Dismissed

The Campfield v. Safelite Group lawsuit was partially dismissed by an Ohio federal court judge this week. The court grants Safelite’s motion to dismiss “with respect to the dollar bill rule that Safelite made” as well as statements that it allegedly ghostwrote for insurance companies. However, the court has denied the company’s motion to dismiss other statements within Ultra Bond’s amended complaint.

The ongoing case involves allegations against Safelite for false windshield replacement advertisements that were made by Richard Campfield, Ultra Bond owner and president. Previous court documents state Ultra Bond developed a method of repairing windshield cracks that exceeded 6 inches in length. Around the same time the company announced its breakthrough in windshield repair. Campfield claimed Safelite began advertising that all windshields must be replaced if it has a crack with or exceeding 6 inches, according to his amended complaint.

“The court finds that Safelite Solution’s statements to its policy holders in its role as a claims administrator are not commercial advertising or promotion under the Lanham Act. “[M]aking a false representation for a purpose other than competition is not acceptable,” a portion of the latest court opinion and order reads.

The court stated it was unable to find Safelite’s statements to be an influencing factor for its customers to buy its products and services.

In regard to Ultra Bond’s allegations involving Safelite ghostwriting brochures, the court sided with Safelite under the Lanham act.

“The court grants Safelite’s motion to dismiss [statements regarding its dollar bill rule]. However, the court cannot say the same at this stage for the alleged statements that were directly made by Safelite to insurers or end consumers,” a portion of the latest opinion and order reads.

The court also ruled in favor of Ultra Bond.

“Statements that a windshield crack longer than six inches cannot be repaired, if false, are at least impliedly statements about the nature and quality of Ultra Bond’s products that repair cracks longer than six inches … at this stage Ultra Bond’s amended complaint creates at least a plausible inference that statements either are literally false or mislead a significant number of consumers,” a portion of court documents read.

Throughout the four year-long advertisement lawsuit, the court has been asked to dismiss it, and has rescheduled several times. Now however, the Ohio court both grants in part and denies in part Safelite’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

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

1 Response to Campfield v. Safelite Lawsuit Partially Dismissed

  1. Pingback: Campfield Files a Summary Judgement Motion in Safelite Lawsuit |

Leave a Reply

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