The ongoing lawsuit between Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Co. (collectively Geico) and Advantage Auto Glass, LLC, (AAG) and its owner, Jeremy Solheim, has ended. Recently filed court documents state both parties have agreed to a settlement outside of court in lieu of pursuing the case further.
“… Based on the communications and discussions between and among counsel for the parties, the parties have agreed to a settlement on all material terms in this case,” a portion of court documents reads.
Currently Geico, AAG and Solheim are finalizing their settlement terms and expect to provide the Arizona court with a notice of its final settlement documentation within 30 days.
“Once the settlement is finalized, the parties will file a stipulation for dismissal of this case,” according to court documents.
The insurance company filed a complaint against AAG and Solheim at the end of April, alleging the auto glass company and its owner were responsible for submitting thousands of fraudulent glass repair claims. Geico originally sought to recover damages under the civil racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act (RICO) statutes, as well as unjust enrichment and fraud statutes.
Geico alleged that “… the claims were fraudulent in that they: involved charges for fraudulent and illusory glass services, parts, and ADAS services that were never performed and/or provided in the first instance; and involved the submission of fraudulent and fabricated purchase invoices in order to substantiate their charges for the glass services and parts and to create the appearance that the defendants had legitimately acquired the glass parts, when in fact they did not,” a portion of Geico’s complaint reads.
Following Geico’s complaint AAG and Solheim sought to extend the amount of time it had to respond to the insurance company’s complaint. Both sides later agreed to the extension as long as AAG and Solheim agreed “not to submit any more bills to Geico while litigation was pending.”
Originally the court stated a response was due at the end of May, shortly after the date was announced, the defendant’s attorney’s claimed that would not be enough time to gather enough evidence to combat the fraud accusations. The date was pushed to the end of June before its current mid-July date.
Now both sides have 30 days to file the settlement terms with the court.