Opinion
CASE NO. 12-5031 RJB
07-30-2012
KIM A. HANN, individually, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION TO WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kim Hann's Motion for Certification of Question to Washington Supreme Court. Dkt. 29. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the file herein.
This case arises out of a 2005 accident where Ms. Hann was hit and injured by an uninsured driver. After years of seeking medical treatment for her injuries, in November of 2008, she requested that her insurance company, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company ("Metropolitan"), the Defendant, pay her the policy limits under her Under Insured Motorist ("UIM") bodily injury coverage. In July of 2011, Metropolitan paid Ms. Hann the policy limits after she prevailed against it in the state trial and appellate courts. She then filed this case. On June 29, 2012, Defendant Metropolitan's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Plaintiff's Claims based on Breach of Contract, Violation of Insurance Fair Coverage Act ("IFCA"), and Outrage (Dkt. 15) was granted and those claims were dismissed. Dkt. 26. Ms. Hann now moves the court for an order certifying to the Washington State Supreme Court the following question regarding her claim under the IFCA:
Can a first party insured recover treble damages and attorney's fees pursuant to RCW 48.30.015(3) solely upon a showing that the insured violated one or more of the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), or must there first be a showing that the insurer unreasonably denied coverage or payment in order to trigger an entitlement to the remedies enumerated in this statutory provision?Dkt. 27, at 4. For the reasons set forth below, her motion should be denied.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The relevant background facts are contained in the June 29, 2012, Order on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26, at 1-8) and are adopted here. In dismissing Ms. Hann's claims for violation of Washington's IFCA, the Order provided,
The IFCA, RCW 48.30.015(1), provides as follows:
Any first party claimant to a policy of insurance who is unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits by an insurer may bring an action in the superior court of this state to recover the actual damages sustained, together with the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, as set forth in subsection (3) of this section.
The IFCA further provides that a court "may, after finding that an insurer has acted unreasonably in denying a claim for coverage or payment of benefits or has violated subsection (5) of this section, increase the total award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages." RCW 48.30.015(2). The IFCA continues, a court "shall, after a finding of unreasonable denial of a claim for coverage or payment of benefits, or after a finding of a violation of a rule in subsection (5) of this section, award reasonable attorney's fees and actual and statutory litigation costs, including expert witness fees, to the first party
claimant of an insurance contract who is the prevailing party in such an action." RCW 48.30.015(3).Dkt. 26, at 14-16. This Order did not dismiss all Plaintiff's claims. Id.
According to the Complaint, Ms. Hann bases her IFCA claims on violations of Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") 284-30-330, 350, 360, 370, and 380. Dkt. 1. . . .
Metropolitan argues, that a violation of the WAC without a denial of coverage, is insufficient to make a claim under IFCA. Dkt. 15. Ms. Hann urges the Court to reconsider its own position and various other courts' position and find that and IFCA claim can be sustained based on violations of the WAC. Dkt. 18.
The statute provides a list of violations that give rise to treble damages or to an award of attorney's fees and costs. This list includes violations of WAC 284-30-330, 350, 360, 370, and 380. RCW 48.30.015(5). "Although violations of the enumerated regulations provide grounds for trebling damages or for an award of attorney's fees; they do not, on their own, provide a IFCA cause of action absent an unreasonable denial of coverage or payment of benefits." Cardenas v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 WL 6300253 at *6 (W.D. Wash. 2011); See Weinstein & Riley, P.S. v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. C08-1694 JLR, 2011 WL 887552 (W.D. Wash. March 14, 2011); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bronsink, No.C08-1524 JLR, 2010 WL 148366 (W.D. Wash. Jan 12, 2010); Lease Crutcher Lewis WA, LLC v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. C08-1862 RSL, 2010 WL 4272453 (W.D. Wash. Oct.15, 2010). The reasoning from these cases is persuasive and is adopted here by reference.
It is undisputed that Metropolitan has paid full benefits under the policy. Ms. Hann has failed to show that she has a claim under IFCA, because there has been no "unreasonably denied" claim "for coverage or payment of benefits." Her arguments regarding the legislative staff summaries of the IFCA and citation to the Washington Insurance Commissioner's Office's website to urge the Court to find a cause of action based on regulatory violations are not availing. Metropolitan's motion to summarily dismiss Ms. Hann's claim under the IFCA should be granted. Ms. Hann's claim under the IFCA should be dismissed.
Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order certifying the above question to the Washington State Supreme Court. Dkts. 27 and 32. Defendant opposes the motion. Dkt. 30.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to RCW 2.60.020,
When in the opinion of any federal court before whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined, such federal
court may certify to the supreme court for answer the question of local law involved and the supreme court shall render its opinion in answer thereto.Further, under Washington's Rules of Appellate Procedure 16.16,
The Supreme Court may entertain a petition to determine a question of law certified to it under the Federal Court Local Law Certificate Procedures Act if the question of state law is one which has not been clearly determined and does not involve a question determined by reference to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff's motion to certify the above question to the Washington State Supreme Court (Dkt. 27) should be denied. Plaintiff failed to show that such a certification should be made. As many other federal district courts have done, this Court was able to make a determination that Plaintiff's claim under the IFCA should be dismissed, and did not require the assistance of the Washington Supreme Court. Further, Plaintiff did not point to any authority that held contrary to the proposition that this Court relied on, that "[a]lthough violations of the enumerated regulations provide grounds for trebling damages or for an award of attorney's fees; they do not, on their own, provide a IFCA cause of action absent an unreasonable denial of coverage or payment of benefits." Dkt. 26. Moreover, "[t]here is a presumption against certifying a question to a state supreme court after the federal district court has issued a decision. A party should not be allowed 'a second chance at victory' through certification by the appeals court after an adverse district court ruling." Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). The Washington State Supreme Court does not operate as a court of appeals for decisions of this Court. Plaintiff's motion should be denied. This opinion will not reach Defendant's other arguments, including those on whether the IFCA is constitutional.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
• Plaintiff Kim Hann's Motion for Certification of Question to Washington Supreme Court (Dkt. 29) IS DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.
Dated this 30th day of July, 2012.
/s/_________
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge