SAFELITE SOLUTIONS LLC GEORGE JEPSEN,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SAFELITE GROUP, INC. AND SAFELITE SOLUTIONS LLC

) ) )

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. )

v. ) )

GEORGE JEPSEN, in his official capacity ) as Attonrey General for the State of ) Connecticut; and THOMAS LEONARDI, in ) his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department,

) ) ) )

Defendants. ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs Safelite Group, Inc. and Safelite Solutions LLC (collectively "Safelite") bring

this complaint against George Jepsen, in his official capacity as Attonrey General for the State of

Connecticut and Thomas Leonardi, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the

Connecticut Insurance Department (collectively "Defendants") based on personal knowledge as

to all Safelite facts, and on information and belief as to all other matters:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action is brought to protect and preserve Safelite's First Amendment and

other constitutional irghts. Safelite respectfully requests that this Court enjoin and declare

invalid the portions of a recently enacted Connecticut statute unconstitutionally prohibiting

Safelite from engaging in truthful commercial speech and compelling Safelite to make

potentially false and misleading statements about other glass shops.

Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 18

2. On June 3, 2013, Connecticut Governor Malloy signed House Bill 5072, An Act

Concerning Automotive Glass Work, into law as Public Act 13-67 ("PA 13-67"). Portions of

both PA 13-67 which takes effect on January 1, 2014 and existing section 38a-354 of the

Connecticut Statutes unconstitutionally restrict Safelite's ability to engage in truthful, non-

misleading commercial speech about the quality of its automotive glass repair services and its

benefits compared to other glass repair shops. In further infringement of Safelite' s First

Amendment rights, PA 13-67 affirmatively requires Safelite to promote other glass repair shops

as part of any statements it may make about itself.

3. Those provisions advance no legitimate—let alone substantial state interest, as

any state law that seeks to regulate speech must. Rather the legislative history of PA 13-67

makes clear that the real purpose of these provisions and their intended effect is constitutionally

impermissible economic protection of local Connecticut glass repair shops from the interstate

competition of Safelite. Indeed, the record evidence is that PA 13-67 was specifically targeted at

Safelite.

4. The claims of some proponents of this legislation that they sought to protect

Connecticut consumers and their freedom of choice are pretextual and insufficient to overcome

its unconstitutionality. Any state interest in consumer choice is already fully served by existing

Connecticut anti-steeirng, consumer protection and antitrust laws. Notably, the legislative

history is devoid of a single consumer complaint about a lack of consumer choice in glass repair

work, much less about the quality or nature of Safelite's customer service. In fact, the

Connecticut Department of Insurance, the department responsible for enforcing the law, called

PA 13-67 "unnecessary" to protect consumers. Thus, the Connecticut provisions are overbroad

2


in violation of the First Amendment's requirement of adoption of the least possible restraints in

any attempt at regulating speech.

PARTIES

5. George Jepsen is the Attonrey General for the State of Connecticut. In that

capacity, Mr. Jepsen has the ability, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-16(b), to bring suit "in the

name of the state of Connecticut for an order . . . restraining and enjoining any person from

violating any provision of the title in which the statute at issue in this case are or will be located.

6. Thomas Leonardi is the Commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department.

In that capacity, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-8(a), Mr. Leonardi must "administer and enforce

the provisions of the title in which the statutes at issue in this case are or will be located.

7. Safelite Group, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business

in Columbus, Ohio.

8. Safelite Solutions LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.

JURISDICTION

9. The court has juirsdiction over these constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. Plaintiff Safelite Group, Inc., is a multi-faceted vehicle glass and claims

management organization based in Columbus, Ohio. The company has been in business since

1947 and, throughout its more than 65 years of service, has grown from a single store location to

a national leader in the industry. The company includes four major business operations:

(1) Safelite AutoGlass, which provides vehicle glass repair and replacement ("VGRR") services;

(2) Safelite Glass Corp., which manufactures aftermarket windshields; (3) Service Auto Glass,

3


which provides wholesaler vehicle glass and vehicle glass-related products; and (4) Safelite

Solutions and Alliance Claims Solutions, which provide complete claims management solutions

for the nation's leading lfeet and insurance companies.

11. Safelite's VGRR business, which operates under the trade name Safelite

AutoGlass in Connecticut, provides its customers with exceptional VGRR services. Safelite is

the largest VGRR organization in the United States. It employs more than 4,200 technicians

who serve more than 4.5 million customers each year both from its fixed store locations, as well

as its mobile service. Safelite AutoGlass service is available to more than 96% of drivers in all

50 states and provides full-service VGRR services. In Connecticut, Safelite employs 107

individuals at eight different locations across the state.

12. Safelite' s claims management business provides complete vehicle glass claims

management solutions to many of the nation's leading insurance companies, including 18 of the

top 30 property and casualty insurance companies. Safelite's claims management business,

which operates through Plaintiff Safelite Solutions LLC, typically handles the entire lifecycle of

a glass claim. Safelite Solutions (1) maintains multiple toll-free telephone numbers dedicated to

insurance company clients' vehicle glass claims; (2) staffs national contact centers with trained

customer service representatives to answer agent, policyholder, and insurance company calls 24

hours a day, seven days per week, 365 days a year; (3) answers the first call from the

policyholder, agent, claims representative or glass shop reporting a vehicle glass claim (known

as the first-notice-of-loss call); (4) obtains information regarding a policyholder's vehicle glass

claim, including vehicle and damage information, so that the repair or replacement can be

performed; (5) assists with scheduling the repair or replacement with the policyholder's shop of

4


choice; and (6) manages and processes the invoices and payments between the insurance

company and vehicle glass repair shop.

13. For each insurance company that Safelite Solutions serves, the customer service

representatives communicate with the policyholders through scirpted language that Safelite

develops in conjunction with each insurance provider to ensure that the customer service

representatives use each insurance provider's requested terminology on each and every call.

14. The customer service representatives, using the insurance provider's scripting,

inform and educate the policyholder on the service needs of their vehicle, the insurance coverage

in place, the features and benefits available to them under their policy and their right to choose

any repair shop to perform the service. Safelite has made significant investments in the

technology that presents the scripted language to the customer service representatives in order to

ensure compliance. The technology presents the customer service representative with various

scirpt options depending on the facts of each vehicle glass claim. For example, if a policyholder

indicates during the call that his car's windshield has a crack that is smaller than a dollar bill, the

scirpt will prompt the customer service representative to discuss with the policyholder the

possibility of repaiirng the windshield, rather than replacing it. But if the policyholder indicates

that the crack is larger than a dollar bill, the script will skip the discussion of repair options and

show the operator the next section of the script.

15. Because Safelite's scirpts are developed in conjunction with each of its more than

150 insurance and fleet management clients, any changes to those scripts require the approval of

each of those customers. Changes to those scripts also require Safelite to make changes to the

computer program that presents those scripts to the customer service representatives.

5


16. Vehicle glass claims are not typically a frequent occurrence, so policyholders

often rely on their insurance company or its representatives to assist with a recommendation of a

vehicle glass repair shop and assisting with the scheduling of an appointment with the shop. It is

an extremely valuable service to policyholders who have found themselves in difficult and

oftentimes stressful situations.

17. As an additional service to its insurance clients and their policyholders, Safelite

Solutions maintains a network of non-Safelite shops (the "Network") who enter into a Network

Participation Agreement. Shops that participate in the Network contractually agree, among other

things, to maintain adequate liability insurance, warranty their work, and agree upon pricing

terms with the insurance companies. There is no cost to join the Network and it is open to all

shops who meet the application criteria. Safelite believes that its own shops meet and exceed

those standards, and provide customers with superior service, because they provide consistently

better customer service, are more reliable and use the best repair and replacement technology in

the industry.

18. In addition to any warranty that a glass repair shop provides, many insurance

companies provide a guarantee of the work performed by Safelite AutoGlass and glass repair

shops that are part of the Network. Most insurance companies do not, however, provide any

guarantee if the repair work is done by a glass repair shop that is not part of the Network.

19. Upon receipt of each telephone call, a pre-recorded announcement is played

disclosing to the policyholder the relationship between Safelite Solutions and Safelite AutoGlass.

In addition, Safelite informs policyholders of the features and benefits available under their

policy and their right to choose any repair shop to perform the service. At no time does Safelite

6


Solutions or any of its insurance provider clients require the policyholder to have the work

performed at a particular shop, and always honors the policyholders' preference.

20. But if the policyholder does not express a preference, the customer service

representative will recommend a glass repair shop in accordance with the insurance provider's

glass program. Many, though not all, of Safelite' s insurance provider clients have chosen

Safelite AutoGlass as one of its preferred glass repair shops. In that case, the scripts may include

a recommendation to Safelite AutoGlass if one is conveniently located or offers mobile repair

service that can perform the work wherever the vehicle is located.

21. If no Safelite AutoGlass shop is available, or if the insurance provider's glass

program does not use Safelite AutoGlass as its preferred glass repair shop, the scirpts may refer

policyholders to a shop that participates in the Network.

22. Each insurance provider's vehicle glass program sets forth what it believes is the

best service to its policyholders, and that is communicated to the policyholder through the

insurance provider scripts.

23. Both Safelite' s insurance company clients and their policyholders, who are the

true "customers," demand and deserve an outstanding claims expeirence from Safelite Solutions.

Customers also demand and deserve outstanding VGRR service from Safelite AutoGlass.

24. As a result, Safelite has compelling economic incentives to provide excellent

customer service. The relationship between Safelite's VGRR business and its claims

management business means that both businesses must consistently maintain high levels of

customer satisfaction. If Safelite AutoGlass shops deliver poor customer service, it does not just

hurt Safelite's VGRR business. It will also impact an insurer's decision to utilize Safelite

Solutions as its third party administrator of vehicle glass claims. In that case, Safelite AutoGlass

7


will also lose a source of referrals. Likewise, if a Safelite Solutions provides a poor customer

claims experience, that will undoubtedly affect that customers' willingness to accept a

recommendation to use Safelite AutoGlass for his or her repair work.

25. These goals providing world-class vehicle glass claims and VGRR services

directly benefit Connecticut consumers. The scope of Safelite's interstate operations allow for

efficiencies and economies of scale that provide Connecticut consumers with world class service

at a competitive price, and encourages the essential market competition that leads to lower prices

and better service for consumers.

26. Given Safelite's economic incentives to provide excellent claims management

and glass repair services, it is not surpirsing that Safelite has consistently achieved high levels of

customer satisfaction. Safelite AutoGlass has earned recognition for excellent customer service,

including most recently the International Service Excellence Award, the Customer Experience

Excellence Award and the Angie's List Super Service Award. Safelite Solutions was awarded a

Gold Level Stevie Award in the "Back Office Customer Service Team of the Year" category.

27. Notwithstanding Safelite's excellent track record of service to Connecticut

consumers, the Connecticut legislature directly targeted Safelite in the recently passed PA 13-67,

as signed by Governor Malloy. The legislative record contains no evidence of any alleged

problems with Safelite's service either in terms of vehicle glass repair service or vehicle glass

claims management or any consumer complaints about Safelite referring business to its own

shops or failing to honor consumer choice. Indeed, for those reasons the Connecticut Insurance

Department testified that "consumers are adequately protected by current law" and that the bill

was "unnecessary."

8


28. The reality is that, as discussed below, the bill's proponents made clear that the

real, and constitutionally impermissible, purpose was to reduce Safelite's share of the market for

VGRR services in Connecticut in favor of "local dealers" and to "level the playing field" in favor

of in-state businesses.

29. Some of PA 13-67's provisions are, though unnecessary, unobjectionable. For

example, section 1(b)(1) prohibits an "automobile physical damage appraiser," an "insurance

company" or a "third-party claims administrator" from "requir[ing] any insured to use a specific

person for the provision of automotive glass work," even though existing Connecticut law

already prohibits insurance companies, agents and adjusters from requiirng that repairs

(including "automobile glass replacement, glass repair service or glass products") be done in a

specified shop. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-354(b)(1). But those provisions regulate Safelite's

conduct, not its speech.

30. Both PA 13-67 and section 38a-354 cross the constitutional line because they also

contain impermissible restrictions on Safelite's First Amendment rights. Specifically, the laws

prohibit insurance companies and their agents (including third party administrators like Safelite)

from making truthful statements about the availability of an insurance company guarantee for the

work performed on the policyholder's vehicle. When PA 13-67 was introduced, its sponsor

descirbed it as merely requiirng insurers and third party claims administrators, like Safelite, "to

provide additional disclosures to an insured regarding such insured's irght to choose" where the

insured's glass repair work would be performed.

31. But PA 13-67 does much more than that. Under PA 13-67 Safelite may not

glass work program established by such company will result in guarantee for the automotive glass work.

state that choosing a facility other than a glass shop participating in an automotive a lack of . . .

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-354 contains a substantively identical prohibition.

9


32. Under both statutes, then, Safelite cannot legally tell policyholders truthful,

accurate information about the benefits of their insurance policy i.e. , that the policyholder's

insurance company will guarantee the repair work if it is done at a glass repair shop within the

Network, but will not guarantee the repair work if it is done at a glass repair shop that is not part

of the Network. Both statutes therefore restrict Safelite constitutional right to engage in truthful,

non-misleading speech.

33. PA 13-67 goes even further than the existing law in encroaching on Safelite's

constitutionally protected freedom of speech. PA 13-67 § (1)(c)(2) adds new language providing

that Safelite cannot

provide the name of, schedule an appointment for an insured with or direct and insured to a licensed glass shop that is owned by (A) such company, (B) such claims administrator, or (C) the same parent company as such insurance company or claims administrator, unless such representative or claims administrator provides the insured with the name of at least one additional licensed glass shop in the area where the automotive glass work is to be performed.

PA 13-67(c)(2).

34. That requirement creates an unconstitutional choice for Safelite when performing

its vehicle glass claims management services. Safelite can choose to forego its constitutionally

protected right truthfully to recommend and promote the services of Safelite AutoGlass to the

policyholders who use Safelite's claims management services. As one of the proponents of PA

13-67 put it, the provision was designed to "prevent[] [Safelite] from self-referring." Safelite's

other choice, if it wants to engage in truthful speech about its Safelite-affiliated shops, is to be

compelled to recommend another glass repair shop even though Safelite may not know, among

other things, whether the other shop can even perform the required service, whether it provides

any—let alone an equivalent lifetime warranty, or when it would be able to complete the

10


service. Moreover, a policyholder who elects to accept Safelite' s forced recommendation of

another shop is likely to blame Safelite if he or she receives poor service.

35. The Constitution of the United States does not allow Connecticut to put Safelite to

that choice.

36. As the legislative history makes clear, PA 13-67 was designed to enable "local

dealers to participate on an equal footing" and "level[] the playing field" for glass repair. And

although certain statements in the legislative record also assert a pretextual interest in protecting

consumer choice, neither rationale can justify the restrictions on and compulsion of speech that

PA 13-67 and 38a-354(b)(2) impose.

37. As noted above, the existing Connecticut anti-steering law in section 38a-354

already protects consumer choice by prohibiting insurance companies or claims administrators

from "requir[ing] any insured to use a specific person for the provision of automobile physical

damage repairs, automobile glass replacement, glass repair service or glass products" and

requiring that customers be notified that they have the irght to use any glass repair shop they

choose. Existing Connecticut consumer protection laws also prohibit any "unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b.

And the existing "Connecticut Antitrust Act" prevents companies from, among other things,

"fixing, controlling or maintaining prices," "contract[ing] . . . , conspire[ing] to monopolize, or

attempt[ing] to monopolize" or "contract[ing] . . . , or conspire[ing] in restraint of any part of

trade or commerce." See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-24, et seq.

38. There is no legitimate factual or policy basis for the new protectionist legislation.

In the legislative debate, there was no evidence in front of the Connecticut legislature suggesting

that these existing laws inadequately protected consumer choice or that these speech restirctions

11


were the "least restrictive" way to address any legitimate concerns. In fact, the evidence showed

that, to the contrary, those existing laws were appropirately protecting consumer choice. The

Connecticut Insurance Department reported that it had not received any complaints from

consumers that they were unable to use their preferred glass repair shop. And Safelite performs

fewer than 20% of the vehicle glass repairs and replacements in Connecticut.

39. The legislature's stated goal of giving Connecticut-based businesses an artificial

and unfair competitive advantage is insidious and unconstitutional. It is most certainly

insufficient, as a matter of settled First Amendment law, to justify PA 13-67's restrictions on

speech. A local economic protectionist purpose is not a legitimate, much less a substantial, state

interest.

40. The Dormant Commerce Clause has also been held to bar states from passing

laws whose object is local economic protectionism. In other words, a state cannot benefit in-

state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors. But here, the legislative record

demonstrates that the Connecticut legislature sought to, and will, burden out-of-state

competitors, here Safelite, in order to benefit in-state "mom and pop" glass repair shops.

41. As one proponent explained, the bill was intended to "preserve jobs here in

Connecticut." Another admitted that the bill's goal was to create a "more fair playing field for

both Safelite and mainly the mom and pops" because at the mom and pops, "the glass is

Connecticut, it's all from Connecticut, all Connecticut jobs." Other representatives stated that

the bill would "help out those small businesses from disappearing," noting that those businesses

"employ people, spend money, do economic development in . . . our state. " They emphasized

that the beneficiaries of the bill were "small businesses that are located here in the state " and

were "the people that contribute to the little leagues in our town. These are the people that

12


contribute to functions in our churches and they're literally being squeezed out of the

marketplace."

42. Indeed, a constant refrain of the legislative hearings on the bill was that its goal

was to "level the playing field" in favor of in-state businesses. Moreover, the bill's clear target

was Safelite, which the legislators identified as only one of two out-of-state third party vehicle

glass claims administrators that also have an affiliated VGRR business.

43. Laws with such a discirminatory purpose cannot survive scrutiny under the

Dormant Commerce Clause.

44. PA 13-67's enactment and the existing prohibitions on speech in 38a-354(b)(2)

result in substantial injury both to consumers and Safelite alike. Consumers are injured because

they are either depirved of information about repair options and the benefits of using Safelite or

are led to believe that other glass repair shops are of equal quality, when they may well not be.

Connecticut consumers are also injured when the increased use of "local dealers" who cannot

match Safelite' s economies of scale and cost savings, drive up the pirce of glass repair and

replacement, and with it the cost of insurance premiums.

45. Safelite is injured in multiple ways. Most notably, Safelite suffers the very real

injury of loss of its First Amendment rights to engage in truthful commercial speech. Safelite

currently exercises its First Amendment right to do so by referring policyholders who call its

claims management service and who do not have a preference for another glass repair shop to

its affiliated Safelite AutoGlass business in certain circumstances. (Safelite also informs

policyholders that they have the right to choose any glass repair shop.) Those referrals reflect

Safelite's truthful and well-earned belief that its service offerings are superior to other glass

repair shops. PA 13-67 would prohibit Safelite from doing so unless it also effectively stated

13


something that it did not truthfully believe i.e. , that other glass repair shops were equally able

to complete and guarantee the policyholder's repair work.

46. Safelite's referral of another glass repair shop also dilutes Safelite's referral of its

own service and suggests, incorrectly, that Safelite does not believe that its own services are

superior to those provided by other glass repair shops. Moreover, when Safelite refers

policyholders to its glass repair shop, the quality of the other shop's work will relfect back on

Safelite. And a policyholder's poor experience with the other shop will result in reputational

harm to Safelite, the entity responsible for the referral but without any control over the quality of

the service.

47. Operationally, Safelite will also be injured by a lower volume of referrals (or

diluted referrals in which customers are presented with two apparently equal options), thus

hurting its revenues and profitability, and its ability to continue to invest in its Connecticut

operations. And Safelite will also have to spend significant resources revising the scripts to add

the additional information required by PA 13-67. The resources required in this undertaking are

vast. Safelite will have to (1) determine how best to comply with the speech restrictions and

requirements in PA 13-67; (2) dratf a modified scirpt to be used with Connecticut consumers;

(3) obtain the approval of Safelite's more than 150 insurance and lfeet management customers

for the changes to the script; (4) re-program the computer program that presents the script to

Safelite customer service representatives, which includes defining, coding, testing and deploying

the changes; and (5) re-train its customer service representatives on the changes to the script for

Connecticut policyholders. This process, which Safelite will have to undertake before PA 13-67

becomes effective, will take many months.

COUNT I (Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201—Unconstitutionality of PA 13-67(b)(2) and

14


(c)(2) and 38a-354(b)(2) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments)

48. Safelite repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein.

49. Safelite has the irght, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, to engage in truthful commercial speech and to control the content of that

speech. PA 13-67(b)(2) and (c)(2) and Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-354(b)(2) unreasonably restrict this

right by requiring that Safelite either refrain from making truthful statements or make statements

that it would otherwise choose not to make and, in many cases, does not believe are true.

50. Specifically, those statutes prohibit Safelite from telling policyholders, truthfully,

that their insurance company will not guarantee work performed by certain glass repair shops.

And PA 13-67(c)(2) prohibits Safelite from referring customers to its Safelite AutoGlass shops

unless Safelite also refers the customer to another glass repair shop.

51. Safelite believes that its service is superior to that provided by other glass repair

shops. Safelite expresses this belief by recommending and referirng policyholders to Safelite

AutoGlass shops when one is available to perform the work required and the policyholder has

not otherwise expressed a preference. Safelite does not make any false or misleading statements

about its services, always tells policyholders that they are free to use the glass repair shop of their

choosing and always honors the policyholder's choice of glass repair shop.

52. With the exception of certain disclosure requirements in PA 13-67(c)(1), which

Safelite does not challenge, none of the speech-related provisions in PA 13-67(b)(2) and (c)(2)

have the purpose or effect of eliminating or reducing customer confusion.

53. Neither PA 13-67 nor Conn. Gen. Stat. §38a-354(b)(2) is justified by any

substantial state interest, does not materially advance any substantial state interest and is not

narrowly tailored. No consumer has complained to the Connecticut Insurance Department that

its glass repair shop preference was not honored. The state's desire to benefit in-state glass

15


repair shops at the expense of glass shops owned by an out-of-state corporation is not a

legitimate state interest. And the speech restirctions go far beyond what would be necessary to

protect any legitimate state interests that exist.

54. An actual controversy exists within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because PA

13-67(b)(2) and (c)(2) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-354(b)(2) create a genuine, credible and

immediate threat that defendants, acting in their official capacities, will seek to enforce PA 13-

67, collect civil penalties or otherwise penalize Safelite for exercising their Constitutionally-

protected irghts.

55. Safelite seeks a declaration that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-354(b)(2) and PA 13-

67(b)(2) and (c)(2) are void under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution.

COUNT II (Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201—Unconstitutionality of PA 13-67

under the Dormant Commerce Clause)

56. Safelite repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 55 as if fully set forth herein.

57. PA 13-67 violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because its object is local

economic protectionism and its purpose and effect is to discriminate against out-of-state glass

repair companies and "level the playing field" for in-state competitors. As the statements of

numerous legislators demonstrate, the purpose of the bill was to "preserve jobs here in

Connecticut" and create a "more fair playing field for both Safelite and mainly the mom and

pops" because at the mom and pops, "the glass is Connecticut, it's all from Connecticut, all

Connecticut jobs."

58. Safelite, which is headquartered in Ohio, is one of only a handful of third party

vehicle glass claims administrators servicing Connecticut policyholders that own, and refer

16


business to, their affiliated VGRR shops. And the legislative history makes clear that the bill

was intended to reduce Safelite' s share of the glass repair and replacement market.

59. PA 13-67's discriminatory treatment of Safelite' s out-of-state business is per se

invalid because Connecticut cannot demonstrate that it has no other means to advance a

legitimate state interest.

60. In addition, by erecting barirers to Safelite' s ability to operate and grow its

business in Connecticut, PA 13-67 excessively burdens interstate commerce in relation to any

arguable local benefits the law confers. The law will reduce Safelite's retail VGRR business in

the state, thereby reducing its ability to expand and invest in its Connecticut operations. That is

bad for consumers and bad for interstate commerce. And the State's desire to "level the playing

field" for its in-state glass repair shops does not justify burdening interstate commerce. To the

contrary, the State's goal is further proof that the law is unconstitutional.

61. An actual controversy exists within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because

Safelite's compliance with PA 13-67 creates a genuine, credible and immediate threat of harm to

Safelite's business and interstate commerce in general.

62. Safelite seeks a declaration that PA 13-67(b)(2) and (c)(2) are void under the

Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Safelite prays for a declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201, that PA 13-67(b)(2) and (c)(2) and Conn. Genn. Stat. § 38a-

354(b)(2) violate the United States Constitution, including but not limited to the First and

Fourteenth Amendments and the Dormant Commerce Clause, Article I, 1 8, and are therefore

void and unenforceable, for a permanent injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing those

provisions and for any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

17


Dated: July 26, 2013 Respec tfully submitted,

By: /s/ Craig A. Raabe

Craig A. Raabe ROBINSON & COLE LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8200 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299

Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Matthew F. Dexter Steven J. Menashi KIRICLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900

Tefft W. Smith KIRICLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200

Counsel for Plaintiffs Safelite Group, Inc. and Safelite Solutions LLC

18


Date post:	25-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SAFELITE SOLUTIONS LLC GEORGE JEPSEN,...

Documents