Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SAFELITE GROUP, INC. AND
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS LLC
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
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.
)
)
Civil Action No.
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 2 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, nonmisleading 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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 3 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 4 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 5 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 6 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 7 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 8 of 18
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
claims management
either in terms of vehicle glass repair service or vehicle glass
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 9 of 18
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
state that choosing a facility other than a glass shop participating in an automotive
glass work program established by such company will result in . . . a lack of
guarantee for the automotive glass work.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-354 contains a substantively identical prohibition.
9
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 10 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 11 of 18
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."
38.
See
Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-24,
et seq.
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 12 of 18
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 instate 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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 13 of 18
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
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
to
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 14 of 18
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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 15 of 18
(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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 16 of 18
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 1367, collect civil penalties or otherwise penalize Safelite for exercising their Constitutionallyprotected 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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 17 of 18
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. § 38a354(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
Case 3:13-cv-01068-JBA Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 18 of 18
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