Campfield Files Motion for Reconsideration

Rich Campfield, owner of Ultra Bond Inc., has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment in the case of Campfield and Ultra Bond v. State Farm and LYNX Services, which recently was dismissed by Judge Robert Blackburn in the U.S. District Court of Colorado (see Campfield, Ultra Bond Lawsuit Against State Farm and LYNX Dismissed and Ultra Bond, Campfield Will Appeal).

In the Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiff, which is Campfield both individually and on behalf of his company, ask for "the Court to revisit certain of its Findings and Conclusions as contrary to the evidence and law" and request a new trial date be set for the case.

Campfield cites the judge's ruling that "a reasonable fact finder could not conclude here that the six-inch windshield repair criterion 'affects a significant number of consumers' under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") because there is 'no evidence demonstrating the number of consumers impacted by this practice,'" and notes that "unlike other prima facie elements of Plaintiffs' claims, these number calculations were not disputed on summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not lay out their entire trial presentation in a twenty-page written response, but only responded to those matters challenged and the arguments made in Defendants' motions for summary judgment."

Campfield also challenges the rulings of the judge based on mathematical representations of the number of State Farm insureds, the number of windshield damage claims and the number of those claims that result in windshield replacements. Stating that the number of State Farm insured is an "undisputed" 40 million and that the insurer has 28-29 percent of the auto insurance market. Campfield also states in his Motion for Reconsideration that it is an undisputed fact "that approximately 1.7 million claims are made annually for windshield damage to State Farm, and that approximately 66 percent of those claims (or 1.1 million) result in windshield replacements." Continuing to cite the summary judgment, Campfield points out that exhibits from both parties and affidavits from his own company show more than 90 percent of windshield cracks are considered long cracks and that 80 percent of windshield replacements are caused by long cracks not being recognized as repairable.

"Therefore, by mathematical computation, approximately 800,000 windshields are replaced at a minimum each year by State Farm due to long crack damage," Campfield argues.

He also contends that his case is one of public interest rather than private dispute, which is what he argues the Rhino Linings USA Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Linings case was, a case cited as precedence.

Additionally, Campfield argues that the records show incidents of "deception" (under CCPA) and "wrongful interference." He states that while LYNX Services recommended replacement of a windshield with a long crack in some cases, a "vast majority of windshield claims" were processed immediately as a replacement and at trial Campfield and his lawyers are prepared to have glass shop owners and insureds provide witness testimony that long crack repairs were never discussed in their conversations with LYNX. Plaintiffs even go so far as to identify one of the witnesses by name, a former LYNX CSR named Mr. Lorme, and outline some of his experiences as detailed in his affidavit.

The Motion for Reconsideration states that in light of Mr. Lorme's affidavit, "this Court should not have concluded that a reasonable fact finder 'could not find that State Farm or LYNX knowingly or intentionally concealed the nature of State Farm's coverage' and that they 'simply recommend a particular coverage option' when the documentary and testimonial evidence will show that no recommendation is made and a replacement is presumed." Plaintiffs further argue that "Insurance companies and their administrators, and even auto repair shops, possess special knowledge and expertise that most citizens do not possess and upon which citizens must rely."

Plaintiffs also cite the court's lack of ruling on two rule objections directly addressing the issues that the Order to Grant Summary Judgment indicated they had not yet produced. Plaintiffs argue that "for the detailed reasons stated in the Objections, Defendants should not have withheld the names of witnesses and related evidence regarding the State Farm O&A Contracts that then could have been provided to this Court - instead of this Court reaching the conclusion that there was 'no evidence' or insufficient proof of wrongful interference or deceptive effects of Defendant's practices."
Wrapping up the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs "suggest that the record shows triable issues on public impact to actual and potential consumers, deception to those consumers under the terms of the CCPA, and wrongful acts by Defendants that interfere with Plaintiffs' contracts or prospective business relations."

CLICK HERE to read the full Motion for Reconsideration.

CLICK HERE to discuss the case on the AGRR message boards.