Allstate Asks Court to Dismiss Auto Glass America’s Counterclaim

Allstate recently asked a Florida court judge to dismiss a counterclaim filed by Auto Glass America LLC (AGA) and its owner Charles Isaly. According to Allstate’s filed motion to dismiss, the insurance company is also seeking certain allegations and AGA’s claims for attorneys’ fees be stricken if the counterclaim is not dismissed. At this time the court has yet to file a response to Allstate’s request to dismiss AGA and Isaly’s counterclaim.

“AGA’s claims for declaratory relief … [regarding the 2016 and 2018 settlements] serve no useful purpose, as they are redundant of issues already before the court. In the event that this court denies this motion to dismiss, in whole or in part, plaintiffs [Allstate] alternatively request the court strike certain allegations that do not pertain to the claims asserted and AGA’s claims for attorneys’ fees,” a portion of Allstate’s response to AGA’s counterclaim reads.

The original lawsuit began with Allstate’s December 2018 complaint, in which the company detailed ten counts against AGA and Isaly, stating the pair “tried to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, obtaining assignments of benefits (AOBs) from insureds, submitting invoices to Allstate for excessive and unreasonable amounts and fil[ing] over 1,400 lawsuits for recovery of excessive and unreasonable amounts,” by stating Allstate shouldn’t be entitled to any financial relief.

Following the original complaint from the Allstate v. AGA and Isaly lawsuit, AGA and Isaly sought to extend the amount of time the pair had to respond to Allstate’s discovery, which lead to the pair requesting to have the dispositive motion to dismiss. Then AGA and Isaly requested the case be dismissed. From there the presiding judge decided to partially approve and partially dismiss certain aspects of a previously filed motion to dismiss in the lawsuit. Following that decision, the defendants [AGA and Isaly] were granted additional time to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint and memorandum of law. Following the events of Allstate’s original complaint, AGA and Isaly filed a response and a counterclaim in which the pair demanded a trial by jury, as well as paid attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief as is just and proper, according to his response.

Within the counterclaim, Isaly admitted that AGA obtains assignments of benefits from Allstate’s insureds but denied it obtains them ‘without informing the insureds what they are signing.

“Isaly admits that generally, he controls AGA and formulates and enforces AGA’s policies and procedures but denies that he controls all policies and procedures described in [Allstate’s] complaint. Isaly specifically denies he controls or has the right of control over the mode and means used by AGA’s independent contractors in the performance of their work,” a portion of Isaly’s counterclaim reads.

Currently all parties are awaiting the court’s decision on Allstate’s motion to dismiss AGA and Isaly’s counterclaim. Allstate is also seeking certain allegations and AGA’s claims for attorneys’ fees be stricken if the counterclaim is not dismissed.

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.

Leave a Reply

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