Tag Archives: Connecticut Anti-Steering Case

Safelite Files New Brief Over CT Anti-Steering Law, Arguing for Appeal, Injunction

Safelite’s attorneys have filed a brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the U.S. District Court “erred in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction” and asked that the lower court’s order to be reversed. The company wants the Appellate Court to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law—PA 13-67.

Continue reading

Posted in glassBYTEs Original Story | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Connecticut Judge Denies Safelite’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Anti-Steering Case

U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton issued a ruling denying Safelite’s motion for a preliminary injunction, writing in her ruling, “because the court concludes that PA 13-67(c)(2) is rationally related to the state’s goal of protecting consumer choice and preventing steering, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.”

Continue reading

Posted in glassBYTEs Original Story | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Connecticut Officials File Opposition to Safelite’s Request for Preliminary Injunction in Anti-Steering Case

The Connecticut public act designed help prevent steering by third-party insurance claims administrators to affiliated auto glass companies should remain intact to “protect consumer choice,” attorneys representing the state Attorney General and insurance commissioner claim in court documents filed with the U.S. District Court of Connecticut Monday in opposition to Safelite’s motion for a preliminary injunction to half enforcement of Public Act 13-67.

Continue reading

Posted in glassBYTEs Original Story | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Connecticut Officials Respond to Safelite’s Allegations in Anti-Steering Case

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, commissioner of the state insurance department, deny that Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work) “unconstitutionally prohibits plaintiffs’ [Safelite’s] commercial speech or otherwise violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights” in court documents filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. Judge Janet Bond Arterton also scheduled oral arguments for the case to take place on December 2, 2013 at 3 p.m. in Courtroom Two of Connecticut U.S. District Court.

Continue reading

Posted in glassBYTEs Original Story | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment