Friday, 23 April 2021 17:40

Court Brief Reveals AGA Strategy


Share This:


Trial briefs were filed in March in the U.S. District Court in Orlando, FL, in the Allstate v. Auto Glass America litigation.

Trial briefs indicate to the court the arguments the parties plan to set forth in litigation and serve as preview of the factual and legal issues that will be argued at the federal trial, scheduled to commence Nov. 1.


Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty (Allstate) v. Auto Glass America, LLC, and its owner Charles Isaly (AGA) was filed in December 2018, with the plaintiffs, Allstate, alleging the defendant, AGA, had engaged in a plan to unlawfully obtain payment for excessive and/or unreasonable charges by submitting inflated invoices which the insurer paid at a reduced rate---a practice known as short-rating. 


Allstate also alleged AGA would then sue them when it paid less than the invoice amount. AGA later filed a counterclaim against Allstate.


In its trial brief, AGA denies the allegations and claims Allstate is not entitled to refund or monetary damages even if AGA and Isaly committed the alleged acts.


AGA states one of Allstate’s claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA) is based on an alleged violation of Florida’s Home Solicitation Act (FHSSA), which does not include a private right of action, never mind a right of action by an insurance company.


AGA states Allstate’s other claims under FDUPTA are based on facts that cannot be proven at trial or that “Allstate simply has no basis or theory to provide legal causation and actual damages.”


Regarding Allstate's claims that AGA neither received a fully compliant Assignment of Benefits from its Allstate insured customers or never received one at all, AGA says Allstate cannot...

Previous Page Continue reading »

Read 154 times