(a) No person who provides retail auto glass products or services paid for in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by an insurer regarding an insurance claim may:
(1) waive, forgive, or pay all or any part of an applicable insurance deductible; or
(2) as an inducement to the sale of goods or services to an insured, advertise or give any rebate, gift, prize, bonus, coupon, credit, referral fee, trade-in or trade-in payment, advertising or other fee or payment, or any other tangible thing or item of monetary value, directly or indirectly, to an insured or any other person not in the employ of the seller.
(b) The attorney general may pursue the penalties and remedies available to the attorney general under section 8.31 against any person who violates this section.
Notes of Decisions
Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Serv. Co., 683 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 325F.783 (2002). Once a customer selects an auto glass company, the insurers are required to pay “a competitive price that is fair and reasonable within the local industry at large.”
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. W. Nat'l Ins. Co., 768 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.783(a) (2008). The insurers contend that the auto insurance policies preclude the insured from assigning the right to post-loss proceeds.”
Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Ins., 643 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.783. The plain language of the statute indicates that the legislature intended to prohibit auto-glass vendors from offering incentives to induce insureds to choose their shops.”
Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Ins., 531 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 2008).
“argued that arbitration was improper in this case because: (1) Alpine Glass lacked standing to proceed as an assignee of Illinois Farmers’ insureds by virtue of an anti-assignment clause in its automobile insurance contracts; and (2) Alpine Glass’s policy of receiving…”
Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Ins., 695 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 2× “The other major dispute raised by Farmers’s counterclaims was whether Alpine had violated Minnesota’s anti-incentive statute, Minn.Stat. § 325F.783(a), by promising each customer that, if her insurer did not pay Alpine’s bill in full, the customer would not be responsible for…”
Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Com (8th Cir. 2008).
“rgued that arbitration was improper in this case because: (1) Alpine Glass lacked standing to proceed as an assignee of Illinois Farmers’ insureds by virtue of an anti-assignment clause in its automobile insurance contracts; and (2) Alpine Glass’s policy of receiving assignments…”
— Minn. Stat. § 325F.783(a) — 2 cases
Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Ins., 695 F. Supp. 2d 909 (D. Minnesota 2010).
“The other major dispute raised by Farmers’s counterclaims was whether Alpine had violated Minnesota’s anti-incentive statute, Minn.Stat. § 325F.783(a), by promising each customer that, if her insurer did not pay Alpine’s bill in full, the customer would not be responsible for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.