Vorhees et al v. Esurance Insurance Services Inc

Filing 60

ORDER granting the Parties' 59 Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to Certify Appeal Under CR54(b). The 59 Motion to Enter Findings in Support of Order Granting Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification, is GRANTED. The stay entered by this Court, Dkt. 56 , is LIFTED for purposes of consideration of the Parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to Certify Appeal Under CR 54(b), shall be REINSTATED, without further action of this Court, upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(KRA)

The Honorable Richard A. Jones

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

JUSTIN R. VORHEES, et al., and KASSI
L. BLANCHARD, spouses,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
ESURANCE INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., an ALLSTATE INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC. company, foreign
corporations doing business in the State of
Washington,

NO. 2:23-cv-00420- RAJ
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
THE PARTIES JOINT MOTION
TO ENTER FINDINGS AND TO
CERTIFY APPEAL UNDER
CR54(b)

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24

Currently before the Court is the parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to
Certify Appeal Under CR 54(b). Having reviewed the motion, the record of the case, and
the relevant legal authority, and no opposition to the motion being filed, the Court hereby
rules as follows:
In support of its Minute Order, Dkt. 56, the Court FINDS:

25
26
PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B)
2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 1

1
2
3
4

1.

With respect to the Orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant Esurance Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, Dkt. 54: the dispositive orders would be final in the sense that each such order
is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims

5

action, were it not for the presence of the 1st party claim for damages under the Plaintiffs’

6

UIM policy; and there is no just reason for delay to appeal the dispositive orders.

7
8
9

2.

The reasons for Rule 54(b) certification via this order include:
a. Plaintiffs seek to appeal the dispositive orders. Bases for the appeal that

10

Plaintiffs intend to assert include but are not limited to: (1) That this Court engaged in

11

impermissible fact-finding in dismissing Plaintiffs’ insurance bad faith, IFCA, and

12
13
14
15

WCPA claims, (2) this Court failed to appropriately apply the standard in Beasley v.
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 23 Wn. App. 641, 517 P.3d 500 (2022), review denied, 200 Wn.2d
1028 (2023); and (3) this Court’s ruling as to the admissibility and relevance Plaintiffs’
insurance bad faith expert contradicts the court’s ruling that no reasonable juror could
find for Plaintiffs.

16

b. No party opposes entry of this order.

17

c. No party will be prejudiced by appeal of the dispositive order prior to trial of the

18
19

remaining claims in this action.
d. The common facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claim for damages under the Esurance

20

Uninsured Motorist Policy are central to the claims dismissed in the dispositive order:

21

Plaintiff’s claims for insurance bad faith, violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act,

22

and for damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. If, on appeal, the court

23
24
25

were to reverse this Court’s decision there is a significant risk that the trial would be
duplicative, a waste of judicial resources, an undue burden on the parties, and that the
trials may produce inconsistent results.

26
PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B)
2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 2

1
2
3
4

e. The costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of
overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for
an early and separate judgment as to the claims and parties involved in the dispositive
order.
f. The following order is in the best interest of efficient judicial administration.

5
6

The Court further FINDS that good cause exists to temporarily lift the stay

7

imposed by this Court, so that the Court may consider and decide the above-referenced

8

motion, and that to reimpose that stay upon entry of this Order is in the interests of

9

justice.

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

A. The Motion to Enter Findings in Support of Order Granting Motion for Rule

12
13
14
15
16

54(b) Certification, is GRANTED;
B. The stay entered by this Court, Dkt. 56, is LIFTED for purposes of
consideration of the Parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to Certify Appeal Under
CR 54(b), shall be REINSTATED, without further action of this Court, upon entry of
this Order.

17
18

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2024.

19
20
21
22
23

A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

24
25
26
PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B)
2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 3