Government Employees Insurance Company (Geico) initially opposed the request by Advantage Auto Glass, LLC, (AAG) and its owner, Jeremy Solheim’s for additional time to respond to its complaint.
However, the Judge has given AAG and Solheim until the end of this week to respond to Geico’s complaint after both parties agreed to the extension.
“Plaintiffs and defendants are currently engaged in good-faith settlement negotiations. The parties hereby certify that they believe they will be able to file a joint notice of settlement with the court,” according to court documents.
Prior to the agreement, Geico claims it was still being billed by AAG and Solheim for auto glass claims.
“Indeed, since the complaint was filed on April 29, 2019, the defendants have continued to submit billing to Geico for many of the same goods/services that are the subject of the complaint,” a portion of court documents read.
According to court documents, both parties agreed to extend AAG and Solheim’s time to respond if they agreed “not to submit any more bills to Geico while litigation was pending.” Originally the court stated a response was due at the end of May, shortly after the date was announced, the defendant’s attorney’s claimed that would not be enough time to gather enough evidence to combat the fraud accusations. The date was pushed to the end of June before its current mid-July date.
The insurance company filed a complaint against AAG and Solheim at the end of April, alleging the auto glass company and its owner were responsible for submitting thousands of fraudulent glass repair claims. Geico is seeking to recover damages under the civil racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act (RICO) statutes, as well as unjust enrichment and fraud statutes. The insurer alleges “… the claims were fraudulent in that they: involved charges for fraudulent and illusory glass services, parts, and ADAS services that were never performed and/or provided in the first instance; and involved the submission of fraudulent and fabricated purchase invoices in order to substantiate their charges for the glass services and parts and to create the appearance that the defendants had legitimately acquired the glass parts, when in fact they did not,” a portion of Geico’s complaint reads.