SAFELITE MAKES FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN LAWSUIT REPLY

Safelite filed their Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss in late January. Safelite, who is being sued for false advertising, just showed they cannot help themselves when it comes to making false statements. As the saying goes, “one lie leads to another”. Their attorney also does not know the difference between a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judge as their Reply reads like a Summary Judgement after there has been discovered.

A Motion to Dismiss is an argument of the law, not the facts. That is because there has been no discovery for a defendant to make conclusory statements of fact. Summary judgment takes place after discovery is over and that is when the factual arguments are made.

Here Safelite’s attorney has made many statements concerning facts that are outright false. But what can you expect, it is no different than Safelite’s script. Their script as we all know misleads consumers and contains at least three lies to steer insureds : (1) The Phantom Warranty which is the Non-Existent Warranty on a repair; (2) the Non-Existent Warranty from the insurance company; and (3) the one that robs the consumer of their hard earned money, the ridiculous “size of a dollar bill” criterion which they are being sued over.

Safelite’s opening sentence accuses Campfield and Ultra Bond of trying to manipulate the vehicle glass repair and replacement market in its favor. REALLY? – you gotta laugh at that one. More false statements follow that statement.

Posted in

Richard Campfield

Leave a Comment





Translate »