CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when the DOT number database is updated.
Tag Archives: Connecticut Anti Steering Law
The lawsuit filed by Safelite Group and Safelite Solutions against Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, state insurance commissioner, over the state’s anti-steering law has reached a resolution. A Connecticut U.S. District Court judge has granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of final judgment, permanent injunction and stipulation of voluntary dismissal.
Six AGRR companies have withdrawn their motions to quash Safelite Group’s subpoenas over Connecticut’s Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut after the companies have agreed to place the subpoenas “on hold.”
Though the Second Circuit Court has ordered a preliminary injunction temporarily halting enforcement of Public Act 13-67—An Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work—the dispute over the subpoenas sent by Safelite continues to play out as the Connecticut Attorney General could decide to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision to the State Supreme Court. LYNX Services was served by Safelite and responded by asking the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania to quash the subpoena. Safelite has responded in opposition.
The Connecticut Attorney General and automotive glass companies who supported the state’s Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) are now analyzing what their next step will be after the Second Circuit Court handed down a decision to temporarily halt enforcement of the statute.
Safelite and Safelite Solutions served a subpoena on the Independent Glass Association (IGA) requesting all documents relating to Public Act 13-67 (a Connecticut Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), all documents relating to plaintiffs’ communications with policyholders and how they refer policyholders to automotive glass repair shops and all documents concerning any automotive glass claims administrator. The IGA responded by sending Safelite a letter objecting to the subpoena, writing “The IGA presently has no members in the State of Connecticut and has had none for the entire time period identified in the document demand accompanying the subpoena.”
An attorney representing Connecticut’s Attorney General and state insurance commissioner has sent a letter to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals notifying the court that a recent decision Safelite’s attorneys have cited as relative to their pending appeal to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law can also be sourced in support the state’s case.
At the judge’s request, Lynx Services has filed an amended motion to quash Safelite and Safelite Solutions’ subpoena in the Western U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania, explaining why this court is the “proper jurisdiction” and why attorneys feel the Columbus, Ohio-based company’s subpoena is “unduly burdensome” and seeks proprietary information. The subpoenas are related to the Connecticut lawsuit over the state’s new anti-steering law.
Safelite’s Attorneys File Letter with Appellate Court in Support of Halting Enforcement of Anti-Steering Law
Attorneys representing Safelite have sent a letter to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals notifying that court of “a recent decision relevant to [their] pending appeal” to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law. “In American Meat Institute versus U.S. Department of Agriculture, the D.C. Circuit held that the test articulated in Zauderer versus Office of Disciplinary Counsel, applies to compelled commercial disclosures that serve government interests besides preventing consumer deception. In doing so, the court adopted the approach already followed in this Circuit. Yet, the court also addressed issues related to Zauderer’s scope that are relevant to this appeal,” the company’s attorneys claim.
A three-judge panel, including Judges Ralph K. Winter, John M. Walker Jr. and José A. Cabranes, met in New Haven, Conn., at the U.S. District Court to hear a number of cases, including Safelite versus Jepsen. Safelite is seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Connecticut law requiring third-party administrators (TPAs) who own glass shops to list a second glass shop when recommending repair at their own shop. The questioning lasted less than 30 minutes.
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.
Safelite’s attorneys have filed a memorandum in the Second Circuit Court further arguing in favor of their motion for an emergency injunction halting enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law pending appeal, claiming, “the state relies on imagined procedural errors” in its argument against a preliminary injunction. The law, Public Act 13-67, went into effect January 1. Circuit Court Judge Susan Carney had denied Safelite’s request for an emergency stay, referring the matter to a three-judge motions’ panel.