“Our consumer base includes, among others, people who depend on their cars to reach their jobs and take care of their families but who are unable to purchase more than minimum limits coverage, as well as singles and families who are starting out or starting over and seniors on fixed incomes,” the insurer told the SEC. The company says its customers are “budget-conscious” and value the flexibility and convenience of starting and stopping coverage and the ability to manage their policies through its mobile application. The defendants were granted 14 days from the date of the filing of the plaintiffs’ brief to respond.SafeAuto has twice announced plans for an initial public offering-in 2004 and again in 2019-but later withdrew both proposals, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 14, the date of the filing of the entry, to file a brief regarding prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs wanted additional interest on the judgment total exceeding $11 million, and the court has granted them 14 days from Jan. Motions had been filed previously for prejudgment interest, and a hearing was held with the matter taken under advisement. It was noted that an offset of $428,633.96 to the total damages amount of $12,156,604.54 “should be given Defendants to reflect the ‘overpayment’ made to the Columbus sales representatives as previously outlined (in the case), making the total damages amount in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants $11,727,970.58.”
in the amount of $4,006,950.28 for unjust enrichment damages consistent with the courts’ March 12, 2010, and Jorders.in the amount of $290,696.15 for new commission damages consistent with the courts’ March 12, 2010, and Jorders.in the amount of $7,858,958.11 for renewal commission damages consistent with the courts’ March 12, 2010, and Jorders.
The court denied the defendants’ motion for a summary judgment on damages and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for such a judgment.Īccording to the court entry, judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: Involved as plaintiffs were former employees and employees serving as sales representatives by Safe Auto Insurance Co./Group in the company’s Monroe County or Franklin County call centers. Plaintiffs also alleged that Safe Auto wrongfully retained renewal commissions on insurance policies sold by formerly-employed sales representatives.” The plaintiffs alleged that their commissions and bonuses and “those of the putative class members were wrongfully reduced when Defendants restructured their Sales Compensation Program in January 2004 and August 2005. In their complaint, they asserted claims “on behalf of themselves, and a putative class of sales representatives employed by Safe Auto since 2000, seeking to recover commissions and bonuses allegedly owned to them on two theories: (1) breach of contract, and (2) unjust enrichment.” “Basically, it’s a breach of contract case,” said John Yocca, court reporter.Īpproximately 180 individuals are the plaintiffs, and the action was filed March 22, 2007. Both the plaintiffs and defendants had filed motions for summary judgments on damages. The judgment for $11,727,970.58 was returned recently in the case heard by Judge Julie R.
0 kommentar(er)
