Twitter You Tube Facebook Autobodynews Linked In

Monday, 07 October 2019 13:49

FL Court Partially Dismisses Motion in Allstate v. Auto Glass America Lawsuit

Written by Emmariah Holcomb, eholcomb@glass.com

Index

A Florida District Court judge ruled to partially approve and partially dismiss certain aspects of a previously filed motion to dismiss in the Allstate v. Auto Glass America, LLC (AGA) and its owner, Charles Isaly lawsuit.

The original lawsuit focuses on claims involving AGA allegedly pressuring Allstate’s insureds to choose their company for windshield replacements. The following update refers to the original complaint in the Allstate versus AGA and Isaly lawsuit.

 

The following details a court order where AGA and Isaly as the defendants and Allstate as the plaintiff.

 

“Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants assert what they characterize as a facial attack based on lack of standing and a factual attack based on abstention grounds. Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” a portion of court documents read.

 

The insurance company also claimed AGA and Isaly failed to meet the legal requirements of its Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claims, to which the court responded:

 

“Regarding damages and causation … plaintiffs have alleged actual damages in the amount of the alleged overages and the costs of the underlying litigation, and have alleged the deceptive and unfair practices by defendants have caused these damages. It is not much of an inferential leap to come to the conclusion that but for defendants’ alleged actions, plaintiffs would not be engaged in over 1,000 lawsuits with Defendants. Thus, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the elements of an FDUTPA claim.”

 

According to court documents, Allstate also argues that AGA and Isaly’s claim for declaratory judgment should be dismissed because it “is nothing more than a mash-up of all prior counts and is duplicative of the multiple requests for declaratory relief asserted as part of the FDUTPA claims.” This argument was also denied in court.


Previous Page Next Page »

Read 287 times