Cim Insurance Corporation v. Cascade Auto Glass, Inc

660 S.E.2d 907 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are all GMAC-affiliated insurance companies providing comprehensive automobile insurance coverage to insureds within North Carolina, including the repair or replacement of damaged automobile windshields. D is an automobile glass replacement company doing business in North Carolina. Between 1999 and 2004, D replaced broken windshield glass in at least 2,284 P-insured vehicles. Prior to 1999, Ps administered its own glass coverage program and generally paid the full amounts billed by D for work performed for its insureds. In 1999, Ps entered into an agreement with Safelite Solutions - an affiliate of Safelite Auto Glass - to serve as a third-party administrator of its auto glass program. Safelite communicated the prices that Ps would agree to pay D for its services, which generally were lower than what Ps previously had paid. D disputed the Safelite prices. Once an insured filed a claim, Safelite would send D a confirmation fax, including the previously stated price Ps would pay, and a statement that 'performance of services constitutes acceptance of the above price . . . .' D could then perform repair or replacement services and bill Ps the rates it deemed 'fair and reasonable.' D disputed the prices Safelite provided in the confirmation faxes. D accepted the payments from Ps and deposited the money into its corporate accounts, without returning any funds to Ps. D has had similar pricing disputes in Idaho and Washington and brought suit in those states seeking to recover ''unpaid' balances' from insurance carriers in those states. D threatened to file a complaint against Ps. Ps brought this instant action for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties. D counterclaimed for breach of contract as to the alleged unpaid balances. Ps filed a motion for summary judgment. Both the Idaho and Washington appellate courts had issued opinions affirming their respective lower courts' granting of summary judgment against D. D appealed.