CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when the DOT number database is updated.
Tag Archives: Public Act 13-67
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.
Six AGRR companies have withdrawn their motions to quash Safelite Group’s subpoenas over Connecticut’s Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) in the U.S. District Court of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.”
LYNX Services has informed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that it and Safelite Group have reached an agreement to put the subpoena regarding Connecticut’s Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work (Public Act 13-67) on hold. The company filed a consent motion to withdraw its motion to quash the subpoena without prejudice and the judge agreed.
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.
The Second Circuit Court ordered a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds that temporary halts enforcement of Public Act 13-67—An Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work.
Safelite Group Inc. and Safelite Solutions LLC have moved for leave to file a first-amended complaint over Connecticut’s anti-steering law in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. The changes in the amended complaint include switching much of the phrasing to past tense since the law, Public Act 13-67 (a Connecticut Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), has gone into effect. However, Safelite is also now seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.
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.”
Second Circuit Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Connecticut Anti-Steering Case, Grants Expedited Appeal
A judges’ panel for the Second Circuit Court has denied Safelite’s motion for an injunction halting enforcement of Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), which went into effect January 1, writing that Safelite “failed to meet the requisite standard.” The judges granted Safelite’s motion to expedite the appeal.
A judge for U.S. District Court of Connecticut has approved a timetable for the anti-steering lawsuit being waged after Safelite sued state Attorney General George Jepsen and Thomas Leonardi, insurance commissioner, to halt Public Act 13-67 (an Act Concerning Automotive Glass Work), which went into effect January 1. Safelite’s appeal to the Second Circuit Court is pending over the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.
“The omissions and errors in the state’s response to Safelite’s motion for a preliminary injunction are glaring and dispositive,” Safelite’s attorneys claim in court documents filed Friday in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut. The company’s attorneys filed the memorandum disputing Connecticut officials’ opposition to a preliminary injunction in the anti-steering case.
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.