Allstate takes insurance company legal motion to the next level

Insurance company legal - broken windshield

The insurer has filed a response to a battle involving a motion to compel originally filed by Auto Glass America.

Allstate has filed a response in an insurance company legal battle which includes a motion to compel which was filed by Auto Glass America (A.G.A.).

The windshield repair business alleges that the insurer must offer more information relating a specific case.

The A.G.A. alleges that Allstate needs to offer additional information regarding a forced windshield repair case. This is the second time Allstate has responded to the insurance company legal battle. The motion was placed by the A.G.A. owner, Charles Isaly.

The issue began in December 2019. At that time, Allstate launched the insurance company legal complaint. That complaint alleged that A.G.A. and its owner had coerced Allstate policyholders into ordering windshield replacements, receiving assignment of benefits from those insurance customers, submitting invoices to the insurer for excessive amounts, and filling over 1,400 recovery of payments lawsuits. This case has a March 2020 mediation date set.

Several steps have been taken into this insurance company legal battle since December.

Following the establishment of the mediation date, A.G.A. responded through Isaly with a motion to compel Allstate. The windshield repair company was seeking to obtain certain answers through documentation, including the proof Allstate said it had to support the accusations it was making. Now, the insurer has responded to the A.G.A.’s motion by filing a request to the court to deny the A.G.A.’s motion.

Allstate’s filing says the insurer believes both A.G.A. and its owner are requesting information with no bearing on the lawsuit.

Near the start of the week, Allstate filed a second response in the Southern Florida courts. Within the response to that second filing by A.G.A. and Isaly, Allstate explained it felt that the windshield company was trying to widen the case’s scope of discovery.

“This broad, expansive discovery would be extraordinarily burdensome for Allstate Fire & Casualty and the other plaintiffs to produce and is simply not needed for A.G.A. to gather information relevant to its one small claim that it has asserted against Allstate Fire & Casualty,” said the Allstate insurance company legal battle. They concluded that the Insurance company legal - broken windshieldwindshield company’s wide reaching and “oppressive discovery” is not in proportion with the case’s true requirements.

Related posts

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.