That stinks.


http://www.glassbytes.com/newsIGALawsuitStatus20051117.htm

This does stink!

I read the IGA response and agree... we can't give up. Safelite must be stopped one way or another. I'm still supporting the IGA to go forward with more lawsuits or whatever.

well sounds like the judge was dirty to not see the facts of the matter , truth be told that there's a lot of people's ass' on the line if they were to get a solid judgement in our favor . Theyd have to admit theyre doing wrong which they basically did, but its ok ? huh , my story would end in bubba's cell getting sold for a pack of Newports if it was on this end, but big business gets a smack on the wrist and is home for thanksgiving.

I think IGA got took my a law firm not doing their home work. This is how or "JUSTIC SYSTEM" works. You must have standing and damages or you must change the law to stop the abuse of corp.$ outsmarting and taking calculated risk at the consumers loss. I am thinking of supporting their next try.

So SGC can say "yeah we lie to all the insured's but it doesn't hurt them so it's ok". So the judge knows they lie and it's ok?????? Great system we have in the good old USA.

Ok, let me see if I have this straight.

1. Safelite says that if you know their practices are deceptive, you should not be fooled by the deception, therefore you should not be harmed. No harm, no foul.

2. Safelite says also therefore, that if the customer or shop does not know that the practices are deceptive, they do not know they were deceived, therefore, not harmed. No harm, no foul again.

With this logic by the judge, extorsion is legal so long as the bank does not know the money is gone. However, if they do realize the money is gone, it's still not a crime because the bank should have been wise to the possibility of theft?

This is just too funny. However, it does lay the groundwork for the next step. This time, included will be named plaintiffs that WERE steered, therefore were harmed, shop and consumer both, and it opens the venue to a multitude of unnamed plaintiffs that don't yet know they were decieved by the apparently admittedly deceptive or misleading practices.

What is does show, is harm to the consumer is the key. Now, is that a surprise?

Still, IGA had to go through the motions, and I think, after reading the little warning about frivolous lawsuits Safelite made in their press release, they know that to dodge this bullet, they may have exposed themselves for another round.

Tell me why, after reading this judgement, it would be wrong to advertise that deceptive misleading practices exist by third party administrators and for consumers not to be fooled by these misleading and possibly deceptive practices? Why not use the words of the judge and just say "you are being lied to"?

Things to think about.....

"Tell me why, after reading this judgement, it would be wrong to advertise that deceptive misleading practices exist by third party administrators and for consumers not to be fooled by these misleading and possibly deceptive practices? Why not use the words of the judge and just say "you are being lied to"? "

I have been seriously thinking of doing just that. I am just not quite sure how to word it.

Start sending copies of the preceedings to ALL your insurance agents! That's what I say we should do. Every insurance company should have a copy of this stuff. No harm in that!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe Ralph Nader or the IGA should sue Safelite on behalf of the thousands of insureds that don't know they were lied too? The judge said the people who know could sue because they found out, right?

Litigation 101, United States of America;
It does not matter if you are right or wrong in the Court. The side with the best lawyer wins.
Sorry thats the truth.