Stephens v. United Services Automobile Association et al, No. 2:2020cv00097 - Document 43 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 42 ). Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
urces. 18 19 20 B. Plaintiff’s Arguments for Reconsideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration raises three interrelated arguments: (1) the Court did not adequately consider the technical meaning of “actual cash ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3 Case 2:20-cv-00097-TOR ECF No. 43 filed 06/24/20 PageID.583 Page 4 of 6 1 value” in its prior Order; (2) the Court should have adopted the reasoning of the 2 Stanizky court in the Western District of Washington; and (3) the Court’s Order 3 violates public policy. ECF No. 42 at 2-8. As the Court already articulated at oral 4 argument and in its written Order, Plaintiff’s arguments are based on a 5 characterization of her claims that differs from Plaintiff’s claims as they are written 6 in her Complaint. 7 First, Plaintiff contends the Court “may not have recognized” the regulatory 8 definition of the term “actual cash value.” ECF No. 42 at 2. Indeed, the Court was 9 aware of the term and the prior Order is consistent with the regulatory definition. 10 Washington insurance regulations define “actual cash value” as “the fair market 11 value of the loss vehicle immediately prior to the loss.” WAC 284-30-320(1). The 12 Court found that the appraisal clause in Plaintiff’s insurance contract was 13 enforceable under her breach of contract claim because the breach of contract 14 claim, as pled in Plaintiff’s Complaint, is fundamentally a dispute over the dollar 15 amount of the actual cash value of Plaintiff’s vehicle, or the “fair market value” of 16 Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the loss. ECF No. 40 at 6-7. The Court’s Order is not 17 inconsistent with the regulatory definition of “actual cash value.” 18 Second, Plaintiff argues this Court should have adopted the Stanizky court’s 19 rationale in denying a similar motion to compel appraisal in the Western District of 20 Washington. ECF No. 42 at 3-4. As the Court already explained at oral argument, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4 Case 2:20-cv-00097-TOR ECF No. 43 filed 06/24/20 PageID.584 Page 5 of 6 1 the breach of contract claim in Stanizky is fundamentally different from the one 2 pled in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The alleged breach in Stanizky is a “failure to adjust 3 and pay [plaintiffs’] total loss claims pursuant to the criteria set forth in § 391 for 4 adjustment of total loss claims.” No. 2:20-cv-0118-BJR, ECF No. 3 at 19, ¶ 6.3 5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2020). By contrast, the alleged breach in Plaintiff’s 6 Complaint is “not offering to settle and by not settling claims based on the actual 7 cash value of loss vehicles.” ECF No. 1-2 at 14, ¶ 6.3. While the Stanizky 8 complaint alleges a breach of contract over the defendant’s failure to comply with 9 regulatory requirements, the plain text of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a breach of 10 contract over Defendants’ failure to settle claims based on the actual cash value, an 11 anticipated dollar amount, of Plaintiff’s vehicle. Unlike Stanizky, Plaintiff has pled 12 a claim that makes the issue “the insurer’s valuation of the loss,” which triggers 13 application of the appraisal provision of Plaintiff’s insurance policy. ECF No. 40 14 at 6-7. Plaintiff’s present characterization of her breach of contract claim cannot 15 override the language of her own Complaint. ECF No. 42 at 3-4. Contrary to 16 Plaintiff’s assertion, this Court has not “created a conflict between federal 17 authorities interpreting Washington law” because this case is distinguishable from 18 Stanizky. 19 20 Finally, Plaintiff argues that compelling Plaintiff to submit to an appraisal operates against the public interest and is inconsistent with Washington’s policy of ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 5 Case 2:20-cv-00097-TOR ECF No. 43 filed 06/24/20 PageID.585 Page 6 of 6 1 protecting insureds. ECF No. 42 at 4-8. Again, Plaintiff’s concerns may be traced 2 to the language of her own Complaint. Some of Plaintiff’s claims allege an 3 insurance regulatory violation, and the Court previously found that those claims do 4 not hinge on a dollar amount of “actual cash value” and do not trigger application 5 of the appraisal clause. ECF No. 40 at 6. Where Plaintiff’s claims allege a failure 6 to pay actual cash value, however, those claims do raise questions of the dollar 7 amount of the actual cash value, and thus trigger the appraisal clause. Plaintiff 8 does not identify clear error or manifest injustice in the Court’s prior Order. 9 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. 11 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish 12 13 copies to counsel. DATED June 24, 2020. 14 15 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
