Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided November 12, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00118·Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 NO. 2:20-cv-118 AMEENJOHN STANIKZY, 8 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY Plaintiff, APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 9 SETTLEMENT v. 10 PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12

Plaintiffs, Ameenjohn Stanikzy, Niklas Steidl, and Jon Mackay on behalf of himself and 13 the proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant, Progressive Direct Insurance Company 14 (“PROGRESSIVE”) all acting by and through their respective counsel, have agreed, subject to 15 final Court approval following sending of the Class Notice to the Settlement Class, to settle this 16 Action upon the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement, filed with the Court on 17 August 7, 2021; and 18 Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a settlement class, preliminary approval of the 19 parties’ class settlement, and the provision of notice, as set forth in the Agreement and pursuant 20 to FRCP 23(e); and 21 22 23

24 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

25 2 has read and considered all other papers filed and prior proceedings had herein, and is otherwise 3 fully informed, and with good cause appearing, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 5 1. This Preliminary Approval Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the 6 Settlement Agreement. 7 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all 8 Parties to this Action, including the Plaintiffs, all Settlement Class Members and Defendant. 9 3. The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class, for settlement 10 purposes only, defined as follows: 11 All Progressive Direct insureds with Washington first party personal line policies issued in Washington State, who received compensation for the total loss of their 12 own vehicles under their First Party (Comprehensive, Collision, and UIM) coverages, and who received a total loss valuation derived from a Mitchell 13 International, Inc. WorkCenter Total Loss Report, based upon the value of comparable vehicles which took a deduction for a “Projected Sold Adjustment.” 14 Excluded from the Class would be (a) the assigned Judge, the Judge's staff and 15 family, and Progressive employees, (b) claims for accidents with dates of loss occurring before January 24, 2014 or valuation dates occurring after July 11, 2021 16 (the date at which Progressive ceased taking a “Projected Sold Adjustment” on Washington claims), (c) claims on “non-owned” (borrowed or rented) vehicles; 17 (d) claims where the insured submitted written evidence supporting a different valuation, and the amount of that different valuation submitted by the insured was 18 paid by Progressive or valuation paid was determined using the appraisal clause; and (e) Opt Outs. 19 Having carefully reviewed the submissions, and without having to determine issues of 20 manageability in the context of settlement certification1, and having carefully considered the 21 22

23 1 In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 556-57 (9th Cir. 2019)(en banc)

24 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

25 2 conflicts, and noting that substantial class certification discovery was completed, which is 3 presented in the parties respective briefing on Class Certification, and without resolving those 4 disputes, the Court finds that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied for 5 purposes of settlement certification. 6 4. For purposes of determining whether the terms of the Proposed Settlement should 7 be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and contingent upon the Settlement being 8 finally approved, Plaintiffs Ameenjohn Stanikzy, Niklas Steidl, and Jon Mackay, are appointed 9 as Class Representatives, and the following counsel are designated as counsel for the Class 10 ("Class Counsel"): 11 Stephen M. Hansen Law Offices of Stephen M. Hansen, P.S. 12 1821 Dock Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, WA 98402 13 Scott P. Nealey 14 Law Office of Scott P. Nealey 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor, 15 San Francisco, CA 94104

16 5. If final approval of the Proposed Settlement is not obtained, or if Final Judgment 17 as contemplated herein is not granted, this Order shall be vacated ab initio and the Parties shall 18 be restored without prejudice to their respective litigation positions prior to the date of this Order 19 of Preliminary Approval. 20 6. Pending final determination of whether the Proposed Settlement should be 21 approved, all proceedings in the Action shall be stayed until further order of the Court, except 22 23

24 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

25 2 with or effectuate the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. 3 7. Within 60 days after the entry of this Order, the Claims Administrator shall send a 4 copy of the Individual Notice and a Claim Form (or Claim Forms if a Class Member has multiple 5 claims), pre-printed with the Class Member’s name and most recent address, the date of the loss, 6 and the vehicle make, model, and year, by first-class mail, to each Person on the Updated 7 Settlement Class List. Prior to any mailing the Claims Administrator shall update all addresses 8 on the Class List by running the addresses thereon through the National Change of Address Data 9 Base. In furtherance of this Paragraph, the Court appoints KCC as the Claims Administrator for 10 this matter. 11 8. The Court preliminarily finds that the dissemination of the Individual Notice and

12 Claim Form under the terms and in the format provided for in this Order and the Settlement 13 Agreement (including supplemental e-mail notice to those with returned addresses, where e-mail 14 addresses are available and the establishment of a settlement notice website) constitutes the best 15 notice practicable under the circumstances and is due and sufficient notice for all purposes to all 16 persons entitled to such notice, and fully satisfies the requirements of due process, the Federal 17 Rules of Civil Procedures and all other applicable laws. 18 9. A hearing (the "Final Settlement Hearing") shall be held on March 30, 2022 at 19 9:00 o’clock a.m., PDT, by videoconference, as set forth in the Individual Notice, to determine 20 whether the Proposed Settlement of this Action (including the payment of attorneys' fees and 21 costs to Class Counsel, and a bonus to the Class Representatives) should be approved as fair,

22 reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether final judgment approving the Proposed 23

24 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

25 2 without leave to amend, should be entered. The Settlement Hearing may be postponed, 3 adjourned or rescheduled by order of the Court without further notice to the Class Members. 4 10. Objections to the Settlement shall be heard, and any papers or briefs submitted in 5 support of said objections shall be considered, by the Court (unless the Court in its discretion 6 shall otherwise direct) only if they comply with the objection procedures set forth in the 7 Stipulation of Settlement and Notice. Specifically, members of the Class who have not 8 previously opted out of the Class must file a notice of intent to object to the Settlement. To be 9 effective, a notice of intent to object to the Settlement must: (1) contain a heading that includes 10 the name of the case and case number; (2) provide the name, address, telephone number and 11 signature of the Class Member filing the objection; (3) be filed with the Clerk of the Court not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company (Stanikzy v. Progressive Direct Auto Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caitlin Ahearn v. Hyundai Motor America
926 F.3d 539 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)