CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when the DOT number database is updated.
Tag Archives: Connecticut
Associations and businesses have begun to speak out – in both opposition and support – of a new piece of auto glass legislation introduced in Connecticut’s General Assembly. The bill, also known as HB 5294, looks to “establish an auto … Continue reading
A bill is under review in the Connecticut legislature that aims “to prohibit employers from inquiring about the criminal history of an automotive glass employee or prospective automotive glass employee.” The bill, titled “An Act Prohibiting Inquiries about the Criminal … Continue reading
Safelite Group, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, state insurance commissioner, have “agreed in principle on the major terms of a settlement and have begun preparing definitive documents memorializing the agreement,” the parties’ attorneys have reported to the U.S. District Court of Connecticut.
Safelite Group and Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, state insurance commissioner, are “discussing whether a consensual resolution of all the issues raised in Safelite’s complaint” is possible.
Judge Joan Margolis has granted Safelite Group’s request to amend its Connecticut complaint over an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) to seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees. She has also set a schedule for the dispute to play out in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut.
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.
Binswanger Glass, Action Auto Glass, Auto Glass of New England and Goulet Glass, doing business as Sullivan Glass, have all filed motions to quash document and witness subpoenas from Columbus, Ohio-based Safelite over Connecticut’s anti-steering law.
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.
Attorney Stephen Wright of Goldman Gruder & Woods is representing three AGRR companies in Connecticut that have been subpoenaed for records and communications by Columbus, Ohio-based Safelite over the state’s anti-steering law. “It’s my belief that Safelite subpoened every glass shop that supported the legislation [Public Act 13-67—an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work],” says Andre Santamaria, owner of Auto Glass of New England, whose Hamden, Conn., location was served.
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.
U.S. marshals served subpoenas from Safelite on many automotive glass company owners in Connecticut this week for information related to its legal effort to halt enforcement of PA 13-67 (An Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), according to the Connecticut Attorney General’s office and glassBYTEs.com™ reader reports.
Safelite’s attorneys told the panel of three judges for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court that the company is following the new Connecticut law, PA 13-67, and that it hasn’t changed the amount of referrals.
Connecticut officials have responded in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the state’s anti-steering law, claiming, “Safelite Solutions has been extraordinarily effective at steering consumers to Safelite AutoGlass.” Safelite appealed a lower court’s decision to the Appellate Court, seeking to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law—PA 13-67.
Second Circuit Judge Susan Carney has denied Safelite’s request for an emergency stay to halt enforcement of Connecticut’s anti-steering law pending appeal. The law, PA 13-67, went into effect January 1. The judge also ordered that Safelite’s motions for an … Continue reading
Several automotive glass repair and replacement company owners are calling the judge’s decision to deny Safelite’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the Connecticut anti-steering case a “victory.” Safelite had asked the Connecticut U.S. District Court to put enforcement of PA 13-67 on hold while it challenges the new anti-steering law in the courts.
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.”
U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton heard additional oral arguments in Safelite versus Jepsen on Monday from Safelite’s Attorney Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis and the State of Connecticut’s Assistant Attorney General Joseph Chambers. At issue in the case is the law requiring third-party administrators (TPAs) that own their own glass shops to provide a name of a non-affiliated glass repair shop in the same area to consumers.