Defendants Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly, went back to court Thursday, filing another motion to compel Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Allstate) to provide additional documents. According to the motion, AGA and Isaly are seeking the insurance company’s pricing agreements.
The lawsuit originated just over a year ago, stemming from Allstate’s allegations that both AGA and Isaly allegedly pressured its insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, while obtaining assignment of benefits (AOBs). The lawsuit began to get heated this week, as AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency motion 24 hours before the presiding judge issued an order.
“Allstate sued AGA and contends in its complaint that AGA charges excessive, unreasonable, inflated amounts for windshield replacements that exceed competitive and prevailing market rates,” a portion of AGA’s motion reads.
According to court documents, AGA and Isaly filed a previous motion to compel Allstate’s pricing agreements, to which Allstate did not comply. Allstate previously stated that it objected to the request on the grounds that it is overbroad and sought the production of documents that the company suggests aren’t relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in the lawsuit, according to court documents. However, both AGA and Isaly say the information is needed to continue pursuing this suit.
“In the instant case, Allstate makes much ado about AGA’s charges for windshield replacements which Allstate says are excessive, unreasonable, inflated and exceed competitive and prevailing market rates. In an effort to defend itself on this issue, AGA asked for copies of agreements regarding pricing for windshield replacements that are set by contracts between Allstate and other shops that are not already bound by network participation agreements. These pricing agreements go to the very heart of Allstate’s allegations that AGA’s prices are excessive, unreasonable and inflated. In other words, Allstate essentially accuses AGA of price gauging yet refuses to produce contracts establishing amounts that other shops charge Allstate and that Allstate pays to other shops,” a portion of AGA’s motion reads.
The auto glass company also highlighted Allstate’s emergency motion for a protective order for one of its corporate representatives, as proof that agreements such as those it’s seeking do exist and should be provided.
“In the emergency protective order, Allstate sought emergency protection from, among other things, having to produce a corporate representative to testify about the terms of the “pricing agreements,” AGA noted in its motion to compel.
For more background on the case, see glassBYTEs’ prior coverage, including: how the case started with Allstate’s complaint, AGA and Isaly’s response to Allstate’s emergency protective order, and how the presiding judge issued an order regarding the emergency motion.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.