fbpx
Tuesday, 25 August 2020 18:21

Judge Orders AGA to Turn Over Financial Records

Written by Tara Taffera, glassBYTEs.com

Index

Judge Leslie Hoffman was clearly frustrated with both sides.

Hoffman, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida in Orlando, had summoned lead attorneys involved in the Allstate Insurance vs. Auto Glass America and its owner Charles Isaly to a hearing on number of discovery motions.

 

The result was 11 lawyers---four for Allstate* and seven for AGA/Isaly---all at the same hearing Aug. 21 to argue five motions concerning discovery. In the course of the hearing, the judge made it plain she felt neither side had been cooperating with the other.

 

The suit, which was filed just before Christmas 2018, alleges AGA and Isaly directed an “extensive and complex scheme … to pressure Allstate’s insureds into hiring AGA for windshield replacements, obtaining assignments of benefits 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.”

 

AGA has since filed a counterclaim as well.

 

The first motion argued Aug. 21 was the insurer’s motion that would order AGA to produce financial records in response to a subpoena for said information. AGA’s attorneys alleged the information Allstate was seeking did not appear to involve specific elements from any specific claims or defenses as framed in the pleadings and was, therefore irrelevant.

 

“Relevancy is what matters when we are talking about private financial matters,” said AGA attorney Mac Phillips of Allstate’s request for a subpoena to AGA’s CPA firm for information going back to 2014.

 

Information sought by the insurer included state and federal income tax returns, detailed financial statements, all accounts payable journals, auditing work papers, info about all bank accounts and financial instruments, all communications between the CPA firm and AGA and all earnings reports. That ruling rendered the defendant’s motion protecting it from such an order moot.


Previous Page Continue reading »

Read 350 times