“Allstate’s motion is due to be denied because a protective order is not warranted. And even though Allstate apparently thinks the circumstances present an ‘emergency’ situation, we are not even close,” a portion of a response filed by Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly, fires back at Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). The filing follows a request for an emergency protective order by Allstate, demanding certain topics not be addressed to one of its corporate representatives.
Allstate has been battling both AGA and Isaly for just over a year, over allegations that they both allegedly pressured Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, while obtaining assignments of benefits (AOBs).
According to court documents, Allstate sought to prevent AGA from asking questions on topics it felt were “excessive, overbroad, vague and unclear, not relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this action, and not proportional to the needs of this case.”
“Even if AGA asks questions outside [of] the scope of the topics noticed, or that may seek information that Allstate inexplicably contends is irrelevant, the settled law does not provide for a protective order under the facts we have here,” a portion of AGA and Isaly’s response to Allstate’s latest motion reads.
Both AGA and Isaly state the circumstances do not remotely approach an emergency. According to the pair, “there are no allegations that any person’s health or safety is at stake or risk, and therefore should have a judgment in their favor.”
“Allstate’s motion is due to be denied because as the plaintiff [Allstate], who has brought a variety of state law claims spanning 248 allegations and 48 pages, must produce a witness to support those claims. It cannot be burdensome, oppressive or not proportional to the needs of the case to have an Allstate witness testify regarding its own allegations. The scope of the topics about which Allstate complains follows the scope of its very own complaint,” a portion of AGA and Isaly’s response to Allstate’s motion 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 outstanding questions, to which Allstate responded. In Allstate’s response several of the questions were deemed irrelevant by 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.” The insurance company felt differently and asked the court to make a judgement in its favor after providing a first response. Not long after its first response, Allstate responded again, a few weeks ago. During Allstate’s second response it stated “the broad, expansive discovery would be extraordinarily burdensome for Allstate Fire & Casualty and the other plaintiffs to produce and is simply not needed for AGA.”
Currently AGA and Isaly have filed a response to Allstate’s request for an emergency protective order for one of its corporate representatives. The pair claim the insurance company’s motion “does not identify an actual emergency or a valid basis for a protective order. Rather, it is a frivolous, eleventh-hour attempt to frustrate AGA’s attempts to defend itself through the discovery process.”
Both AGA and Isaly believe the motion be denied in all respects, as well as Allstate being sanctioned and compelled to pay AGA’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the motion.
At this time, neither Allstate nor the court have responded to the recent court filing. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.