On September 21, 2021 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Operation Auto Glass, Llc,
Poe, Mike,
and
Allstate Fire And Casualty Insurance Company,
in the District Court of Hillsborough County.
Preview
Filing # 137442270 E-Filed 10/28/2021 10:37:13 AM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
OPERATION AUTO GLASS, LLC
a/a/o MIKE POE,
CASE NUMBER: 21-CC-098042
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to F.R.C.P.
1.370, requests Defendant admit or deny each of the following:
1. Defendant is properly named in this action.
2. Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit.
3. The windshield that was in the motor vehicle that is the subject of this complaint
was damaged and had to be replaced.
4. Defendant received timely notice of the loss in this claim.
5. Defendant never inspected the at-issue damaged glass while the glass was being
retained for that purpose.
6. Defendant did not pay the prevailing competitive labor rate charged in the area
where the at-issue installation was performed.
7. Defendant did not pay the insured’s actual cost of replacement parts, labor
equipment, fees and taxes in this claim.
8. Defendant denied coverage for and did not pay the fees listed on Plaintiff’s invoice
10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1
in this claim.
9. Defendant denied coverage and did not properly pay for the discretionary sales tax
in this case.
10. Defendant has failed to indemnify its Insured for the full cost of replacement it
contractually agreed to pay.
11. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an explanation as to why the invoice
submitted by Plaintiff was not paid or was not paid in full.
12. The amount charged for the subject repair is within the range of “prevailing
competitive labor rates” in the geographic area where the subject services were performed.
13. Defendant has no data, survey or report to show that the reimbursed amount was
the “prevailing competitive price” charged in the area where the subject repair or replacement was
performed.
14. The price charged by Plaintiff for the subject loss is a “prevailing competitive price”
for the geographic area where the subject auto glass services were performed.
15. Defendant reimburses windshield glass claims based upon a fee schedule created
by an insurance servicer.
16. Contrary to Mitchell International’s admonishments, Defendant always reimburses
“NAGS” suggested hours for a windshield loss regardless of the actual time it takes to remediate
a windshield loss.
17. The reasonable price of a windshield replacement depends upon the facility, the
location of the facility, the convenience of the facility, the quality of the installation, reputation of
the facility, warranty and the cost/quality of the products used.
18. A “prevailing competitive price” is a price at which a willing buyer and willing
10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2
seller are amenable to entering into an arms length transaction.
19. In determining a “prevailing competitive price”, Defendant utilized its experience
and considered the “NAGS benchmark price”; what other auto glass shops are billing Defendant;
what other insurers are paying; and the market responses to price changes.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was uploaded to the
Florida E-Portal with all parties selected for delivery on October 28, 2021.
/s/ Donald J. Masten, Esquire
____________________________________
DONALD J. MASTEN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No: 0679161
Primary: Don.Masten@myflalawyer.com
P.O. Box 4449
Orlando, FL 32802
Phone: 407-288-2869
Attorney for Plaintiff
10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3
Document Filed Date
October 28, 2021
Case Filing Date
September 21, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 137442270 E-Filed 10/28/2021 10:37:13 AM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA OPERATION AUTO GLASS, LLC a/a/o MIKE POE, CASE NUMBER: 21-CC-098042 Plaintiff, vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ______________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.370, requests Defendant admit or deny each of the following: 1. Defendant is properly named in this action. 2. Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit. 3. The windshield that was in the motor vehicle that is the subject of this complaint was damaged and had to be replaced. 4. Defendant received timely notice of the loss in this claim. 5. Defendant never inspected the at-issue damaged glass while the glass was being retained for that purpose. 6. Defendant did not pay the prevailing competitive labor rate charged in the area where the at-issue installation was performed. 7. Defendant did not pay the insured’s actual cost of replacement parts, labor equipment, fees and taxes in this claim. 8. Defendant denied coverage for and did not pay the fees listed on Plaintiff’s invoice 10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1 in this claim. 9. Defendant denied coverage and did not properly pay for the discretionary sales tax in this case. 10. Defendant has failed to indemnify its Insured for the full cost of replacement it contractually agreed to pay. 11. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an explanation as to why the invoice submitted by Plaintiff was not paid or was not paid in full. 12. The amount charged for the subject repair is within the range of “prevailing competitive labor rates” in the geographic area where the subject services were performed. 13. Defendant has no data, survey or report to show that the reimbursed amount was the “prevailing competitive price” charged in the area where the subject repair or replacement was performed. 14. The price charged by Plaintiff for the subject loss is a “prevailing competitive price” for the geographic area where the subject auto glass services were performed. 15. Defendant reimburses windshield glass claims based upon a fee schedule created by an insurance servicer. 16. Contrary to Mitchell International’s admonishments, Defendant always reimburses “NAGS” suggested hours for a windshield loss regardless of the actual time it takes to remediate a windshield loss. 17. The reasonable price of a windshield replacement depends upon the facility, the location of the facility, the convenience of the facility, the quality of the installation, reputation of the facility, warranty and the cost/quality of the products used. 18. A “prevailing competitive price” is a price at which a willing buyer and willing 10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2 seller are amenable to entering into an arms length transaction. 19. In determining a “prevailing competitive price”, Defendant utilized its experience and considered the “NAGS benchmark price”; what other auto glass shops are billing Defendant; what other insurers are paying; and the market responses to price changes. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was uploaded to the Florida E-Portal with all parties selected for delivery on October 28, 2021. /s/ Donald J. Masten, Esquire ____________________________________ DONALD J. MASTEN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No: 0679161 Primary: Don.Masten@myflalawyer.com P.O. Box 4449 Orlando, FL 32802 Phone: 407-288-2869 Attorney for Plaintiff 10/28/2021 10:37 AM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3