The San Mateo County Superior Court in California denied a motion to strike a whistleblower complaint filed against Safelite Group Inc., Safelite AutoGlass and Safelite Solutions LLC, alleging widespread violations of California’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (CIFPA).
In the unsealed complaint, the whistleblower, Brian Williams, a former Safelite product development and strategy manager, alleges that Safelite violated the CFPA for years by issuing false and misleading bills to insurance companies for original equipment manufacturer or “OEM” moldings, even though less expensive universal moldings were installed instead. Insurance companies were unaware that they were paying for the cheaper parts because Safelite allegedly programmed its billing system to suppress the information.
The complaint also alleges that Safelite implemented a “Care and Clean Service” during the Covid pandemic, where technicians were supposed to use special COVID-19 sanitation wipes developed by Safelite to clean the vehicle before beginning a job and before returning the vehicle to the customer, charging insurers for the service. However, the complaint alleges that Safelite’s technicians repeatedly failed to use the wipes to sanitize vehicles but continued to bill insurance companies for the service.
The Superior Court issued an order denying Safelite’s motion to strike the sanitation wipe claims. The Court has set this case for trial on September 29, 2025.
Mark Molumphy, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, the law firm representing Mr. Williams, stated, “Safelite’s customers and their insurers expected to receive the high quality products and services that they were billed and paid for.”
Tyson Redenbarger, a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, added, “The order today will allow the pursuit of claims for millions of dollars in overcharges and statutory penalties in California.”
Gia Jung, an associate at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, who argued the motion to strike, stated, “This is an important victory for our client and all Californians who pay insurance rates premised on honest charges and billing practices. We look forward to taking this case to trial.”
When the complaint was filed in January 2022, the names of the defendants were originally sealed. The California Court unsealed the complaint and the identities of the parties. A similar action was also filed and unsealed in Illinois Circuit Court against the same parties.
