Jenkins v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 84

ORDER denying 83 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

TRINA JENKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

v.

CASE NO. C15-5508 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Dkt.
83. The Court denies the motion.
Plaintiffs first move for reconsideration on the basis that the Court erred in
refusing to consider the expert report of Dr. Siskin. Dkt. 83 at 2–8. To the contrary, the
Court considered and accepted all of the substantive and relevant information contained
in Dr. Siskin’s report. As noted by Plaintiffs, the motion for class certification did not
require damages to be shown to a high level of precision, see Dkt. 83 at 3. Accordingly,
the Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Siskin’s report. Perhaps Plaintiffs’
arguments seek to challenge the Court’s comments on the value of Dr. Siskin’s report

ORDER - 1

1

moving forward absent an updated study underlying his linear regression analysis, but

2

this does not constitute a basis for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying class

3

certification.

4

Plaintiffs’ additional arguments regarding the predominance and superiority

5

inquiries on its motion for class certification are merely a restatement of the arguments

6

made in their original motion and pleadings. These arguments do not point to any

7

particular evidence that was overlooked or manifest error by the Court and do not

8

constitute grounds for reconsideration. Nonetheless, the Court will address Plaintiffs’

9

repeated reliance on Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co., 173 Wn.2d 264, 280 (2011). Plaintiffs

10

are correct that the decision in Moeller rejected the argument that apparent difficulties in

11

assessing an accurate estimate of class-wide damages resulting from possible prior

12

accidents should preclude class certification. However, this case is easily distinguished

13

from Moeller. As noted in the Court’s previous order, cases such as this where an insurer

14

has claim-filing procedures and recognizes its duty to compensate diminished value

15

claims stand in stark contrast to the circumstances in Moeller, where the insurer

16

necessarily denied compensation to all its insureds with UIM policies on the mistaken

17

basis that diminished value was not covered. See Moeller, 173 Wn.2d at 269–77.

18

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the Court’s purported error in mistaking issues

19

of damages calculations for issues that bear on liability fails to address other bases of the

20

Court’s determination that common questions do not predominate the claims of the

21

individual class members. See Dkt. 82 at 19–21.

22

ORDER - 2

1
2
3

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. 83) is DENIED.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2018.

A

4
5

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 3