Court Schedules Conference Call in Lawsuit Over Connecticut Anti-Steering Bill

The judge has ordered that a conference call be held between Safelite, the defendants and their respective attorneys to discuss the status of the anti-steering case in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut.

“The plaintiffs, Safelite Group Inc., et al., with the consent of all defendants, hereby move for a brief telephonic status conference in order to discuss with the court the briefing and hearing schedule for this matter and to further inform the court of the parties’ agreed-upon procedure for the disposition of the motion for a preliminary injunction,” attorneys write in court documents.

Judge Janet Bond granted the motion and set the time for 4 p.m. on September 16, 2013 to set deadlines and hearings for the case. The conference call is being called a “status update.”

Safelite filed the lawsuit in late July, asking the U.S. District Court of Connecticut for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a law that it claims will “unconstitutionally” force the company to recommend auto glass repair and replacement work to its competitors. The law was signed off by the governor and is set to take effect January 1.

In addition to asking for a preliminary injunction, Safelite has also filed a complaint against George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General and Thomas Leonardi, Commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department that asks for a permanent injunction against enforcement.

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Court Schedules Conference Call in Lawsuit Over Connecticut Anti-Steering Bill

  1. J.W. says:

    There it is in black & white again. This is a conflict of interest to begin with and is going on all over the USA. The consumer is paying for insurance and should have the right to choose who they want to do their work. Which means they should be informed that they have more than one shop to choose from. That is only fair and what this country is suppose to be all about to begin with. The great state of Connecticut has tried to make an effort to be fair to all concerned but the CEO Godfather of autoglass doesn’t seem to see it that way.
    I’m sure that if he were an independant shop owner with a family and employee’s to take care of he would be saying the same as I am. (Let’s get real people he is trying but he can’t have it all)

    • K.J says:

      I wonder if Safelite is even hearing what they are saying. They do not or have they ever steered business? Feney made a comment about giving the customer the best service possible, just more lip service, if you truly mean this, why wouldn’t you give the customer more options. A TPA is suppose to be bias. If you truly do not steer business, then what is the law suit about, you pretty much are telling the people and the courts you do with this law suit. I applaude Conn for doing something, I hope this catches on and I hope all the insurance companies signed up with Safelite Solutions and Alliance Claim Solutions WAKE UP to what they are doing. It is un ethical. Go LYNX

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *