Auto Glass America, LLC (AGA) and its owner Charles Isaly filed a response to Allstate’s complaint and a counterclaim this week, and is demanding a trial by jury. Isaly, who is the defendant in the Allstate v. AGA and Isaly lawsuit, confirmed portions of Allstate’s complaint but denied many of the accusations, including obtaining assignment of benefits (AOB) for an alleged “scheme” it was doing against Allstate.
“Isaly admits AGA obtains assignments of benefits from Allstate’s insureds but denies that it obtains them ‘without informing the insureds what they are signing.’ Isaly admits that the assignments AGA obtains allow AGA to seek payment for windshield replacements directly from Allstate and then file lawsuits against Allstate if full payments are not made,” a portion of Isaly’s response reads.
AGA’s company policies in relation to Isaly’s control was also addressed and answered in Isaly’s filed response.
“Isaly admits that generally, he controls AGA and formulates and enforces AGA’s policies and procedures but denies that he controls all policies and procedures described in [Allstate’s] complaint. Isaly specifically denies he controls or has the right of control over the mode and means used by AGA’s independent contractors in the performance of their work,” a portion of Isaly’s filed response reads.
The response also includes an admittance that states “AGA does not typically inform its customers about specific details in their Allstate policies, and assumes that AGA’s customers have read their policies and/or discussed the policies with an Allstate representative.”
Another notable allegation in Allstate’s original complaint involved Isaly’s control over his technicians and third party companies who refer AGA windshield replacement jobs, to which Isaly denied enforcing certain acts in exchange for a “finder’s fee.”
“Isaly denies he controls, formulates or enforces the acts and practices of independent contractor technicians and third parties who refer windshield replacement jobs to AGA in exchange for a finder’s fee and with whom Isaly is not in regular communication. Isaly further denies that AGA employs “salespeople” as that term is commonly understood,” a portion of Isaly’s filed response reads.
Isaly responded to Allstate’s original complaint which detailed ten counts against AGA and himself, stating the pair “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,” by stating Allstate shouldn’t be entitled to any financial relief.
In fact Isaly stated the court should enter its judgment in his favor, and award him his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief as is just and proper, according to his response.
These court filings are preceded by Allsate’s original December 2018 complaint, AGA and Isaly then sought to extend the amount of time the pair had to respond to Allstate’s discovery, which lead to AGA and Isaly requesting to have the dispositive motion to dismiss. AGA and Isaly then requested for the case to be dismissed, then the presiding judge ruled to partially approve and partially dismiss certain aspects of a previously filled motion to dismiss in the lawsuit. Most recently the defendants were been granted additional time to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint and memorandum of law.
Currently Isaly has responded to Allstate’s complaint and has filed a counterclaim in which it is suing the automotive insurance provider for money damages, according to his counterclaim. Look to future editions for more updates on this case.