The legal face-off between Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Allstate) and defendants Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly continues to heat up, as Auto Glass Inspection Services Inc. (AGIS), filed an objection to Allstate’s “non-party Subpoena Deposition Duces Tecum.”
“Auto Glass Inspection Services, Inc., hereby objects to plaintiff’s served on Auto Glass
Inspection Services on May 5, 2020, mere days before the date noticed in plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum of May 7, 2020. Auto Glass Inspection Services, Inc. objects to Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum without deposition and seeks a protective order,” a portion of the objection reads.
A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce relevant documents for use at a trial, according to court documents. According to AGIS, it’s rejecting the issued subpoena for reasons that include:
- The investigative reports Allstate seeks to discover are work product;
- Documents, reports, and videotapes generated by investigators hired to investigate an accident are protected from discovery by work product;
- Work-up and evaluation files prepared by an insurance company’s claims file personnel are privileged work product;
- Claims file work product privilege extends to independent investigators hired by an insurer in assist in evaluating a claim; and
- Auto Glass Inspection Services, Inc.’s information is considered a trade secret.
The lawsuit began with Allstate’s complaint alleging that both AGA and Isaly 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. Allstate then asked the court for a dismissal on AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel “computations of each category of damages” for each plaintiff, citing that the motion was frivolous. The court decided to discharge all of defense attorney Michael Laurato’s show cause orders. New dates, along with a virtual mediation were scheduled at the beginning of May, but the mediator selected filed a notice of cancellation.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.