Jenkins v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 84

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

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?