Safelite Asks Minnesota Supreme Court to Review Cease and Desist Order from Insurance Division.

The pressure is on, keep the heat on make sure this ruling sticks

This will have a domino effect for sure,

Good job Ben, Rick and all the rest that helped win this.

There is more to come I am sure, Karma baby

Connecticut's law went up in flames, they have very deep pockets and do not go down to defeat quietly.
Ooops....

This is not a law. AAA willingly entered a consent decree so that Minnesota would stop hearing procedures.

When one has a corrupt business model that promotes bias in auto insurance claims settling, one should simply be glad that they can still settle claims for the other 190+ insurers in MN and the rest of the country. But they are proving that they will not stop until they have cornered the market.

MN needs to show one that they have not only every right to control the insurance companies licensed to do business in its state, but also have the duty to proactively supervise, review and audit every claim settled by a company that is also an active service provider in the same industry.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled in ( North Carolina Dental Board vs FTC)

"Justice Kennedy author*d the 6-3 opinion, upholding the FTC’s application of antitrust laws to activities of state agencies or boards comprised of market participants that lack active state supervision—a requirement for receiving state action immunity.

Although first articulated in Parker v. Brown, [13] the Supreme Court has interpreted the antitrust laws to confer “state action” immunity for anticompetitive conduct by the states when acting in their sovereign capacity. The test for determining whether state action antitrust immunity applies has two parts: (1) whether the state has a “clear articulation” of policy to allow anticompetitive conduct, and (2) whether the policy is “actively supervised” by the state. The “clear articulation” requirement is met “where the displacement of competition [is] the inherent, logical, or ordinary result of the exercise of authority delegated by the state legislature.” [14] The active supervision element requires that “state officials have and exercise power to review particular anticompetitive acts of private parties and disapprove those that fail to accord with state policy.” [15] The supervision rule “stems from the recognition that where a private party is engaging in anticompetitive activity, there is a real danger that he is acting to further his own interests, rather than the governmental interests of the State.”

States all across the country have shown that they are either not willing or not able to step up and fulfill their responsibilities until the MN commissioner called AAA onto the carpet. Well now the pendulum is swinging the other way and maybe the DOJ and the FTC will take action and enforce the 1963 Consent Decree which auto insurers have snubbed with impunity.

It would be nice if the IGA, NWRA, and attorneys representing auto glass repair facilities all across the country were permitted to file "friend of the court" rebuttals for the MN Supreme Court to consider.

The decree seems to be between the state and the insurer and pertains to the mechanism the insurer is using. Safelite not being one signatories of the document must make one question their standing.












Who is the Customer?

The appellate court judge already told Safelite they didn't have any standing.
Hence the petition to the MN Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court judge(s) should tell Safelite to take their corrupt business model and get completely out of Minnesota.