Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) went back to the Southern Florida courts and filed a second response to Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly’s motion to compel discovery. Allstate believes AGA and Isaly are attempting to broaden the scope of discovery in this case. The insurance company also claims the information requested is irrelevant.
“This broad, expansive discovery would be extraordinarily burdensome for Allstate Fire & Casualty and the other plaintiffs to produce and is simply not needed for AGA to gather information relevant to its one small claim that it has asserted against Allstate Fire & Casualty. Thus, AGA’s broad and oppressive discovery is not proportional to the needs of this case,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
According to the motion, both AGA and Isaly sought to be “provided better answers to AGA’s first set of interrogatories served.” The insurance company feels differently and has asked the court to make a judgement in its favor after providing its first response. Allstate filed the lawsuit last year, alleging AGA and Isaly, “tried to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements.”
AGA and Isaly are also requesting their attorney’s fees be paid for by the insurance company, Allstate had an opposing view.
“AGA’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs should be denied. Even if this court grants some portion of AGA’s motion to compel, Allstate Fire & Casualty’s objections were substantially justified. This is particularly true given that at the time the discovery requests and responses were served, there were no claims or defenses asserted in this action regarding or relating to Allstate Fire & Casualty’s use of AGIS as an appraiser,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
Allstate says the claims both AGA and Isaly made stating they had “conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel (Allstate) by telephone and e-mail several times regarding the outstanding discovery and about its motion to compel,” were not accurate.
“Counsel for plaintiffs and AGA have indeed spoken several times by telephone and discussed each of the 163 requests that were included in the applicable requests for production, but all of those discussions took place prior to the filing of AGA’s counterclaim and amended counterclaim. Indeed, the Auto Glass Inspection Services Inc. (AGIS) related requests at issue in the instant motion to compel were not fully discussed, as there were no claims or defenses at issue in the case pertaining to plaintiffs’ use of AGIS as an appraiser at the times of counsels’ discussions,” 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 its second response to AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel, while also asking the court to issue a ruling in its favor. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.