A Florida District Court judge ruled to partially approve and partially dismiss certain aspects of a previously filled motion to dismiss in the Allstate versus Auto Glass America, LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly lawsuit. The court announced its decision this week. The original lawsuit focuses on claims involving AGA allegedly pressuring Allstate’s insureds to choose their company for windshield replacements. The following update refers to the original complaint in the Allstate versus AGA and Isaly lawsuit. AGA and Isaly looked to have the dispositive motion to dismiss fully approved in court, and stated a few reasons why it believed the case should cease.
The following details a court order where AGA and Isaly as the defendants and Allstate as the plaintiff.
“Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants assert what they characterize as a facial attack based on lack of standing and a factual attack based on abstention grounds. Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” a portion of court documents read.
The insurance company also claimed AGA and Isaly failed to meet the legal requirements of its Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claims, to which the court responded:
“Regarding damages and causation … plaintiffs have alleged actual damages in the amount of the alleged overages and the costs of the underlying litigation, and have alleged the deceptive and unfair practices by defendants have caused these damages. It is not much of an inferential leap to come to the conclusion that but for defendants’ alleged actions, plaintiffs would not be engaged in over 1,000 lawsuits with Defendants. Thus, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the elements of an FDUTPA claim.”
According to court documents, Allstate also argues that AGA and Isaly’s claim for declaratory judgment should be dismissed because it “is nothing more than a mash-up of all prior counts and is duplicative of the multiple requests for declaratory relief asserted as part of the FDUTPA claims.” This argument was also denied in court.
FDUTPA alleged violations based on FHSSA and FTC rules were not dismissed in the recent court update.
According to court documents, FHSSA makes it “unlawful for any person to conduct any home solicitation sale” without first obtaining a permit. Similarly, the FTC Rule applies to sales “of consumer goods or services . . . which [have] a purchase price of $25 or more if the sale is made at the buyer’s residence or a purchase price of $130 or more if the sale is made at locations other than the buyer’s residence.”
AGA and Isaly alleged Allstate violated FHSSA and the FTC Rule by soliciting AGA’s insured customers at their homes for windshield replacements. However, Allstate stated there were no violations made because AGA’s insured customers did not have to pay for the windshield replacements.
“The FHSSA only states that it applies to “sale . . . of consumer goods or services with a purchase price in excess of $25.” It does not state that the end-user of the consumer good has to be the one paying the purchase price. This definition also suggests that it does not matter who ultimately bears the responsibility for payment. Thus, Count VII will not be dismissed on this basis,” a portion of court documents read.
The lawsuit highlights claims that involve AGA allegedly pressured Allstate’s insureds to choose their company for windshield replacements. The case was filed in late December 2018, and details ten counts against AGA and Isaly, which claimed they “tried to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, obtaining assignments of benefits (AOBs) from insureds, submitting invoices to Allstate for excessive and unreasonable amounts and fil[ing] over 1,400 lawsuits for recovery of excessive and unreasonable amounts.”
Look to future editions for more updates on this case.