Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Allstate) filed a response to the defendants, Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly’s motion to compel “computations of each category of damages claimed and other evidentiary material…on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of the injuries suffered” by each disclosing Allstate plaintiff.
The defendants sought to have the insurance company provide a clear breakdown of its original calculated damages which Allstate claimed exceeded $75,000. According to AGA and Isaly, Allstate’s damage disclosures failed to provide a computation of each category of damages claimed for each Allstate plaintiff against each separate defendant. The pair requested Allstate to voluntarily provide its initial disclosures. According to the defendants, this information is required for Allstate to provide without a request.
“Since January 10, 2020, Allstate has failed to provide a proper mandatory damage disclosure and has failed to supplement its damage disclosures. AGA and Isaly also sought elucidation of the damages disclosure through a deposition of Allstate’s corporate representative, but that representative did not know the basis of the damages claimed by the Allstate plaintiffs,” a portion of the defendants’ motion to compel reads.
Allstate responded to AGA and Isaly by asking the court to deny the defendants’ “frivolous motion” and award sanctions against the defendants.
“Before [the] defendants filed the motion, [the] plaintiffs had repeatedly advised [the] defendants that they agreed to and were working to supplement their initial disclosures to include more detailed damages calculations,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads. “Nonetheless, [the] defendants proceeded to file their unnecessary and baseless motion to compel, in which they fail to disclose to the court the plaintiffs’ agreement, misrepresent that plaintiffs have refused to serve supplemental disclosures, and have refused to withdraw the motion—without any attempt to confer with counsel for plaintiffs about the motion, contrary to defendants’ counsel’s false certification.”
According to court documents, the initial disclosures were due by March 20, 2019 and the defendants’ requested an extension. Both parties agreed to extend this deadline by one week until March 27, 2019. Allstate served its initial disclosures on March 27, 2019. The defendants are now claiming that the plaintiffs were “late” in serving their disclosures, according to their motion to compel.
“Defendants’ motion to compel is entirely baseless and should be denied, as the defendants are seeking to compel something that the plaintiffs have already agreed to do. This is a waste of this court’s resources, as well as the resources of undersigned counsel,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
Allstate claims it previously advised the defendants on multiple occasions that the company agreed to and were working to supplement its initial disclosures.
“Nonetheless, defendants’ misleading motion fails even to acknowledge that Allstate had already agreed to supplement the disclosures. Defendants made no attempt to confer with counsel for the plaintiffs regarding the motion to compel. Had they made any effort to confer before filing the motion to compel, counsel for plaintiffs could have explained what it was doing to gather the information and data to provide the requested calculations, and advised of plaintiffs’ plan to serve the supplemental disclosures prior to or concurrently with their response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which is now due by April 3, 2020,” a portion of Allstate’s response reads.
The lawsuit began with Allstate’s complaint alleging 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 heat up, as AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency motion 24 hours before the presiding judge issued an order. To which AGA and Isaly filed another motion against Allstate. Shortly after a mediation was scheduled.
The insurance company previously urged the court to deny AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel Allstate to provide its pricing agreements. Allstate cited confidentiality as its reason for not providing its pricing agreements. However the presiding judge ordered the insurance company to produce its pricing agreements.
From there AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency protective order. The presiding judge then issued an order regarding the emergency motion. Last week Allstate requested additional time to meet with the defendants for mediation, to which the judge granted parts and dismissed parts. Ultimately the Court extended the mediation deadline until May 29, 2020. Following the mediation extension, Allstate filed an unopposed motion that requested additional time for the insurance company to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.