State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively State Farm) has filed a federal lawsuit in Florida’s Middle District Court against At Home Auto Glass LLC, William Camp and Nicholas Alexander (collectively defendants). The insurance company alleges that the defendants are responsible for fraudulent windshield replacement claims and has requested $1.4 million in damages from the presiding judge.
State Farm claims that sales personnel for At Home Auto Glass’ solicited State Farm insureds at their homes or in other public places to agree to auto glass replacement services. According to the insurance company’s complaint, most of the defendant’s salespeople operated without the licenses that it says are required by Florida law for door-to-door solicitations, incentivized customers to agree to the services through inducements of gift cards or bonuses for referrals and the promise the work would be performed at no cost to the customer.
“At Home’s salespeople used forms to obtain the customer’s authorization to perform glass replacement services that concealed the exorbitant charges that would be submitted in connection with the customer’s claim,” a portion of the complaint reads. “The salespeople also falsely claimed (or misrepresented) the services would be performed at no cost to the customer, despite the fine-print on the documentation stating the customer was responsible for the charges.”
Stat Farm also alleges that At Home Auto Glass’s operations were designed to “create the appearance it was an actual auto-glass replacement company, but in reality, it was created to operate as a middle man with no more than one employee who did not perform any actual auto glass repairs.”
State Farm stated the following reason to support its allegations against the defendants:
- Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act;
- Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act; and
- Unjust enrichment;
At Home Auto Glass recently filed a motion to dismiss this case.
“Because State Farm’s Complaint fails to state a proper claim for relief as against Camp that is plausible on its face, it should be dismissed,” a portion of the motion to dismiss reads. “Camp respectfully requests the order of this Court dismissing the complaint, with prejudice, and granting such other and further relief as is appropriate under the circumstances.”
The presiding judge has yet to issue an order on At Home Auto Glass’ motion. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued updates on this case.