Car Insurance Bbh New

There were several developments over the past several days in the antitrust lawsuits filed against insurance companies across the U.S.

Price’s Collision Center (PCC), a multiple collision repair shop operator with seven locations in Tennessee and Kentucky, has filed a response in opposition to a motion by Progressive Insurance to transfer Price’s case against the insurer into the several antitrust cases that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In opposing the transfer into the Auto Body Shop Antitrust Multi-District Litigation (MDL) the filing by Price’s states, “Given the obvious inappropriateness of the Price’s Case joining this MDL, one can only assume this is yet another attempt by Progressive to avoid its discovery obligations and delay a potentially embarrassing trial in the Middle District of Tennessee.”

According to the response, Price’s doesn’t believe there are sufficient common questions of fact between their case and the MDL to warrant a transfer. As an example, the response cites the MDL transfer order that characterizes the cases consolidated as violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act that “…involves allegations of a complex anticompetitive conspiracy among the nation’s leading insurance carriers and dozens of regional companies…”

According to Price’s response its case against Progressive does not include Sherman Act Claims, allegations of conspiracy amongst insurers, or DRP relationship issues since Price’s does not participate in Progressive’s DRP.

The response explains that the cases consolidated in the MDL, “…are massive disputes, some between literally dozens of repair shops on the plaintiff side and a nearly equal number of insurance companies on the defense side.”

While Price’s suit and the MDL both include allegations of steering, the response states, “In the MDL, the allegations arise from an allegedly concerted effort, led by State Farm, to punish participants in DRPs for non-compliance; in the Price’s Case, the allegations arise from an effort, directed solely by Progressive, to steer customers away from PCC, who is not a member of Progressive’s DRP, because Progressive thinks PCC charges too much money and because Progressive has institutional animus toward PCC. The phrase ‘apples and oranges’ was coined for precisely this type of situation.”

The response also states that it does not meet tests for convenience or efficiency that would need to be met to justify the transfer.

Price’s response asks that the Judicial Panel for Multi District Litigation (JPMDL) affirm the MDL Clerk’s finding that its case is inappropriate for the MDL and deny Progressive’s transfer motion.

Hearing Set to Hear Crawford and State of Louisiana Opposition to Transfer As previously , Crawford’s Auto Center, Inc. is also opposing consolidation of Crawford’s Auto Center, Inc., v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, Co, et al., a “RICO class action” with the antitrust lawsuits consolidated in the MDL.

The State of Louisiana also opposes the transfer of its suit .

A hearing has been set for December 4 in the U.S. District Court in Charleston, South Carolina to consider and hear oral argument, by the plaintiffs Crawford’s Auto Center, Inc., and State of Louisiana, et al., and defendants The Progressive Corporation, et al., to transfer of their respective actions to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On Monday, Judge Shelly D. Dick granted State Farm’s motion to stay all proceedings in the suit brought by Louisiana against the insurer pending the decision of the Judicial Panel concerning its transfer to the Florida court.

Two Additional Antitrust Suits Filed this Week Two additional antitrust lawsuits were filed this week in Arizona and Michigan.

Legends Collision LLC et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. was filed Tuesday, October 28 in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. The complaint, names six current and former collision repair facility operators as plaintiffs including: Legends Collision LLC; Raintree Auto Body Incorporated; Jan’s European Auto Body Incorporated; New Image Paint and Body Shop; Airport Auto Center and Orlando Auto Body, Inc. The complaint names more than 20 insurance companies as defendants.

Rodenhouse Body Shop, Inc. et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. was filed Monday, October 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The complaint names 12 collision repair firms as plaintiffs and more than 30 insurance companies as defendants.