Bauman et al v. American Commerce Insurance Company

Filing 110

ORDER denying Defendant's 106 motion for reconsideration, by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

LOUANN BAUMAN,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

CASE NO. C15-1909 BJR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

AMERICAN COMMERCE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

14
Defendant.
15
16

I.

17

On January 4, 2017, this Court entered an order partially granting and partially denying

18

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 105.) On January 17, 2017, Defendant

19

timely filed a motion for reconsideration of a portion of that ruling. (Dkt. No. 106.) Having

20

considered the motion, the cited supporting cases and applicable portions of the record, the Court

21

DENIES Defendant’s request for reconsideration. While there is no need for modification of the

22

order, the Court will provide the clarification of the previous order which Defendant appears to

23

require.

INTRODUCTION

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

II.

2

LCR 7(h)(1) states that

3

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny
such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have
been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

4
5
6

III.

7

Defendant’s summary judgment motion requested, among other things, a ruling that “[t]he

8

amount of the arbitration award entered in the underlying UIM arbitration is not the ‘actual

9

damages.’” Dkt 91, Motion at 2. In response to that request, the Court ruled that the arbitration

10

award does not automatically establish the amount of “actual damages” under either the Insurance

11

Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) or the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”).1

DISCUSSION

12

The crux of the Court’s ruling in this regard was that Plaintiffs would be put to their proof

13

of what damage was proximately caused by the alleged violations of IFCA and the CPA; the Court

14

did not rule out the possibility that the arbitration award might meet that standard, but clearly stated

15

that the arbitration award per se did not constitute the measure of “actual damages” under either

16

statute.

17

In support of its motion, Defendant cites Potter v. Am. Family Ins., N0 C16-5406BHS,

18

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176146, which -- citing to another Western District of Washington ruling

19

(Schreib v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 129 F.Supp.3d 1129 (W.D.Wash. 2015)) -- held that the

20
21

Regarding IFCA, the Court ruled: “This Court is not prepared to state, as a matter of law that, if Defendant is guilty
of a violation of IFCA, the arbitration award represents the damage proximately caused by that violation.” Dkt. No.
105, Order at 6.
1

22
23
24

Regarding the CPA, the Court ruled: “While not granting Defendant’s motion regarding the CPA in its entirety,
the Court reserves for a later day which (if any) portion of the arbitration award constitutes ‘actual damages’ under
the CPA.” Id. at 8 (emphasis supplied).

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

plaintiffs there were “entitled to prove at trial that [the insurer’s] alleged IFCA violation

2

proximately caused [them] actual damages, and will not be limited by those described in the

3

arbitration award.” 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176146 at *5 (quoting Schreib, 129 F.3d at 1137).

4

This Court, like the courts in Potter and Schreib, recognized that the damages represented by the

5

arbitration award resulted from Plaintiff’s accident and are not necessarily the same damages that

6

might result from an IFCA or CPA violation. Therefore, the Court’s ruling appears to be totally

7

consonant with the two cases cited by Defendant.

8

If Defendant is seeking a ruling that Plaintiffs may not rest on the fact of their arbitration

9

award as proof of their damages, this Court has already so ruled. If Defendant is seeking a ruling

10

that Plaintiffs may not introduce the amount (or some portion thereof) awarded at arbitration as

11

representing damages proximately caused by the alleged violations of IFCA and the CPA, that

12

position is not supported by either the Schreib or Potter opinions:

13
14
15
16
17
18

[D]amages resulting from an unreasonable denial of benefits under IFCA could be, but are
not necessarily identical to, damages resulting from the accident.
***
[Plaintiffs] are ‘entitled to prove at trial that [their insurer’s] alleged IFCA violation
proximately caused [them] actual damages, and will not be limited by those described in
the arbitration award’… [T]o the extent that [the insurer] seeks a ruling on what [the
Plaintiffs] must prove as actual damages under the CPA and the tort of bad faith, [the
Plaintiffs] are not limited to the [arbitration] award.
Potter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176146 at **5-6 (quoting Schreib, 129 F.Supp.3d at 1137).

19
20

IV.

21

Defendant has failed to establish, by virtue of its new legal authority, a manifest error of

22

CONCLUSION

law in the Court’s ruling. Its motion for reconsideration will be DENIED.

23
24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

1

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

2

Dated January 25, 2017.

3
4
5

A

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4