Yesterday, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) filed a response to a motion to compel filed by Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly, alleging that the insurance company needs “to provide better answers to AGA’s first set of interrogatories served.” Allstate disagrees and has asked the court to deny that motion. Allstate filed the lawsuit last year, alleging AGA and Isaly, “tried to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements.”
“AGA is improperly attempting to use the discovery process in this case to obtain documents and information that it can use in the hundreds of cases it has filed against plaintiffs (Allstate) in Florida’s state courts,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
According to the motion’s response, the insurance company believes AGA and Isaly are attempting to broaden the scope of discovery in this case. Allstate also claims the information requested is irrelevant to the lawsuit.
“The amended motion to compel seeks documents that are entirely irrelevant and unrelated to the claims and defenses at issue in this case, particularly with regard to Allstate Insurance. It also does not comply with the requirements of the local rules, with regard to the formatting and conferral requirements. Thus, Allstate requests that the court deny the amended motion to compel in its entirety,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
Allstate also stated the previously requested W-2 forms were overbroad, when responding to one of the questions in the motion to compel.
“Request No. 20 sought copies of 1099s or W-2 forms generated by Allstate Insurance for services performed by AGIS…for conducting appraisals for the years of 2010-2018. As an initial matter, this request seeks documents that exceed the four-year statute of limitations (the parties have generally agreed that the relevant time period, for the purposes of discovery, is January 1, 2014, to date). Further, amounts paid to AGIS also are irrelevant because, as discussed above, no Florida court has recognized that as a basis for finding an appraiser to be disinterested. Also, this request is overbroad,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
The case began last December when Allstate filed a complaint, alleging that AGA and Isaly, “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.” The court responded to a previous motion to dismiss, along with setting a mediation date for March 2020.
Following the setting of a mediation date, AGA and Isaly filed a motion to compel in order to get answers for some of its outstanding questions, to which Allstate responded. In Allstate’s response several of the questions were deemed irrelevant from the insurance company and were not answered fully, according to AGA. From there, AGA and Isaly filed another motion to compel that if granted would require the insurance company to provide “better answers to its first set of interrogatories.”
Currently Allstate has filed a response to AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel, asking the court to deny. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.