AGRR Magazine

Motion for Reconsideration, Opposition Filed in Diamond Triumph v. Safelite Case

Judge James M. Munley's July 31 ruling that favored Safelite Group in Columbus, Ohio, the lawsuit brought by Diamond Glass Companies (formerly Diamond Triumph Auto Glass) was not the end of the legal battle now in its third year.

Diamond Glass filed a motion for reconsideration in August, as well as a reply in support of its motion on November 11, responding to Safelite's opposition to Diamond's motion for reconsideration.

Safelite's opposition to the motion, filed on October 31, included nine points of argument. Safelite argued that reconsideration usually can be won on a change of law or evidence or an error of law. "Reconsideration is not for asking the Court to 'rethink' decisions, to relitigate, or to raise arguments or evidence that could have been raised earlier," Safelite lawyers wrote in the Opposition.

Safelite also argues that Diamond's reconsideration is "not warranted as to substantial deception" and that Diamond does not cite Lanham Act cases or correctly apply the law, among other things.

Diamond counters that its request for reconsideration is appropriate because it is asking the court to "clear errors of fact or law," as it believes the finding that there was no "disputed factual issues on Safelite's misleading statements to consumers regarding Diamond's pricing policies and Diamond's claims administrations procedures," to have been in error.

Lawyers for Diamond wrote that in its opposition, Safelite "completely ignores Diamond's argument on reconsideration that no privilege should apply to Safelite's statements to insured because Safelite was not a representative of the insurance company or that it exceeded any statements about Diamond pricing and services."

Not all documents filed in the case are available to the public, with some having been sealed from the court and references to those documents limited and quotes omitted from subsequent court documents that are considered public record.

One paragraph, though, in Diamond's response probably rang true for both sides:

"This case has dragged on for over four years. It has cost the parties millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses and created uncertainty and mistrust in the industry."

Stay tuned to for more information about the case as it becomes available.

CLICK HERE to read Safelite's Opposition to Plaintiff Diamond Triumph's Motion for Reconsideration.

CLICK HERE to read Diamond's Reply in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration.

No reproduction, in print, electronic or any form without the expressed written permission of
Key Communications Inc. 540-720-5584.