Graham v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

MARK GRAHAM,

Plaintiff, CV 23-53-H-BMM-KLD vs.

FARMERS INSURANCE ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE EXCHANGE and MID-CENTURY JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND INSURANCE COMPANY, RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

Plaintiff Mark Graham (“Graham”) filed this putative class action alleging claims for breach of contract, violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeking a declaration that Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”) subrogation practices violate Montana law. (Doc. 4.) Graham and his wife, Janice, were struck by another car during a collision with an intoxicated driver. Graham suffered catastrophic injuries, and Janice was killed in the accident. (Id.) Graham’s car was totaled. Graham disagreed with the valuation of Graham’s totaled car provided by Defendant Farmers. This disagreement led Graham to refuse to cash the check. Farmers then contacted Progressive, the insurer of the at-fault driver, to demand 1 repayment. Graham demanded that Farmers withdraw its subrogation claims to Progressive. Farmers refused to withdraw its subrogation demand. An attorney

handling the subrogation demand from Farmers Insurance Subrogation & Recovery Law Firm contacted Graham directly to discuss Farmers subrogation policy and Graham’s losses and potential recovery for property losses. (Doc. 4-1.)

Defendants Farmers and Mid-Century Insurance Company moved to dismiss Graham’s declaratory judgment claim on the basis that the UTPA bars the claim, or alternatively, because the facts supporting such a claim prove insufficient. (Doc. 7.) Defendants also argued that Graham had failed to include sufficient facts to support

his claims for breach of contract or violation of the UTPA. (Doc. 7.) U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto (“DeSoto”) issued Findings and Recommendations on September 20, 2024. (Doc. 34.) DeSoto took the allegations

in Graham’s Complaint as true and found that Graham had alleged sufficient facts to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss his claims for breach of contract and violations of the UTPA under Rule 12(b)(6). (Id. at 9–10.) DeSoto found that Graham’s declaratory judgment claim should be dismissed. (Doc. 34 at 8.) U.S.

Magistrate Judge DeSoto recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Graham’s declaratory judgment claim and deny the motion as to all other counts. (Doc. 34 at 11.) 2 Neither party filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. The parties have waived the right to de novo review thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Absent objection, this Court reviews findings and recommendations for clear error. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with

a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States

v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The Court reviewed U.S. Magistrate Judge DeSoto’s findings and recommendations for clear error and found none. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that U.S. Magistrate Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 34) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED as to Count 1, Graham’s Declaratory Judgment claim, and DENIED

as to Graham’s remaining claims for Breach of Contract and violation under the Unfair Trade Practices Act. DATED this 17th day of October, 2024.

kh ~ its, + Niine ( “Au Brian Morris, Chief District Judge SS United States District Court