Anderson et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 42

ORDER granting 36 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; the Court will retain jurisdiction for a motion from Defendant barring further filings; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 9/4/2015 (DN). (cc to pltfs)

1
Honorable Ronald B. Leighton

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9

THOMAS ANDERSON and PATRICIA
ANDERSON,

10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.

No. 3:15-cv-05159-RBL
ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

12
13

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

14

Defendants.

15
16

THIS MATTER came before the Court on defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile

17

Insurance Company (“State Farm”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed

18

and considered the following:

19
20

1.

Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment;

2.

Declaration of Donna M. Chamberlin in Support of Defendant State Farm Mutual

21
22

Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits;
3.

Response of Plaintiff Thomas Anderson, if any;

24

4.

Response of Plaintiff Patricia Anderson, if any;

25

5.

Reply of Defendant State Farm in Support of State Farm Mutual Automobile

23

26
27

Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment
6.

All other pleadings and papers on file with the Court.

ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 1
[CASE NO 3:15-CV-05159]
4819-3355-2678.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98121
206-436-2020

1
2
3
4

Having considered the foregoing, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law:
1.

Plaintiffs’ claims are duplicative of allegations, claims and issues that have

already been litigated by Plaintiffs against State Farm in prior court proceedings and Plaintiffs’

5
6
7

reiteration of the claims in this Court is not well founded in fact or law;
2.

The statutes of limitations for all claims asserted by Plaintiffs Thomas Anderson

8

and Patricia Anderson lapsed before the commencement of this lawsuit, including statutes of

9

limitations for breach of contract, claims asserted under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act,

10

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”), and extra-contractual claims alleged in tort

11

and including all allegations alleging bad faith, as well as any residual claims sounding in tort

12
and bad faith;
13
14

3.

All claims alleged by Thomas Anderson and Patricia Anderson are barred by

15

Patricia Anderson’s breach of the State Farm Policy’s provisions, which Policy provisions

16

required Patricia Anderson’s cooperation with State Farm in defending against liability claims

17

asserted by Thomas Anderson against Patricia Anderson and State Farm and which vested State

18

Farm with the sole authority to enter into settlements and payment obligations, and Patricia

19

Anderson’s breach of the Policy’s cooperation and settlement provisions apply to Thomas

20
Anderson as a party acting in privity with Plaintiff Patricia Anderson – and is a bar to all claims
21
22
23

asserted in this lawsuit;
4.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata which bars Thomas

24

Anderson’s previously adjudicated claims in the Oregon State Court for Multnomah County and

25

other claims herein that could have been adjudicated in that prior action, and which bar applies

26

equally to Patricia Anderson as a party acting in privity with Thomas Anderson;

27
ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 2
[CASE NO 3:15-CV-05159]
4819-3355-2678.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98121
206-436-2020

1
2
3
4

5.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by issue preclusion in that the courts in Oregon

previously determined that Thomas Anderson is not owed additional sums under State Farm’s
Policy, State Farm did not commit any acts that were in breach of contract, bad faith, outrageous
or oppressive, and Plaintiffs violated their duties to cooperate with State Farm by acting

5
6
7

collusively and in violation of the Policy’s terms; and
6.

Plaintiffs cannot state IFCA claims because: (a) IFCA does not apply

8

retroactively to their claims and IFCA’s non-retroactivity cannot be extended by repeated

9

reassertion of the Andersons’ claims; and (b) Plaintiffs are asserting third-party claims which are

10
11

not cognizable under IFCA.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

12
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment IS GRANTED in its entirety.
13
14
15
16

This Court will retain jurisdiction to hear a motion by State Farm barring further
litigation by Plaintiffs that arises from the same operative facts and for an award of costs.
DATED this 4th day of September, 2015.

17
18

A

19

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 3
[CASE NO 3:15-CV-05159]
4819-3355-2678.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98121
206-436-2020

1

Presented by:

2

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

/s/ - Donna M. Chamberlin
Donna M. Chamberlin, WSBA # 31227
V. Andrew Cass, WSBA # 31365
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER GRANTING STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – 4
[CASE NO 3:15-CV-05159]
4819-3355-2678.1

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98121
206-436-2020