Stephens v. United Services Automobile Association

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 KAY STEPHENS, an individual, and all other similarly situated, NO. 2:20-CV-0097-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 SECOND MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 10 UNITED SERVICES 11 AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas reciprocal insurance exchange, 12 and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 13 corporation,

14 Defendants. 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration 16 (ECF No. 50). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. 17 The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the 18 reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 19 50) is DENIED. 20 1 BACKGROUND 2 This case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations, on behalf of herself and a

3 proposed class of Washington personal vehicle policyholders, that USAA 4 systemically undervalues its customers’ total vehicle loss claims by relying on 5 CCC valuation reports, which Plaintiff alleges unlawfully apply an un-itemized

6 negative vehicle condition adjustment when calculating vehicle value. ECF No. 1- 7 2 at 2-3, ¶¶ 1.1-1.5. The factual background is summarized in the Court’s prior 8 Order at ECF No. 40. 9 On April 7 and 8, 2020, Defendants USAA and CCC each filed motions to

10 stay this case and compel Plaintiff to submit to an appraisal of her vehicle. ECF 11 Nos. 24, 26. On June 2, 2020, the Court heard argument on these motions. ECF 12 No. 39. On June 4, 2020, the Court partially granted Defendant USAA’s motion,

13 denied Defendant CCC’s motion as moot, and ordered Plaintiff to submit to an 14 appraisal during the normal course of discovery. ECF No. 40. On June 19, 2020, 15 Plaintiff filed her first motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 42. The Court denied 16 this motion. ECF No. 43.

17 On July 10, 2020, with permission of the Court, Plaintiff filed her first 18 amended complaint. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff amended her complaint to narrow the 19 causes of action to a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act

20 (“CPA”), civil conspiracy, and declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF No. 49 at 1 17-21. The factual allegations remain substantively the same as those alleged in 2 the original complaint. Compare ECF No. 1-2 with ECF No. 49. On July 21,

3 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant second motion for reconsideration, relying on the 4 changes made to the causes of action in the amended complaint. See ECF No. 50. 5 DISCUSSION

6 A. Reconsideration Standard 7 The Court need not revisit the legal standard governing motions for 8 reconsideration, which was discussed in the Order denying Plaintiff’s first motion 9 for reconsideration. See ECF No. 43.

10 B. Arguments on Second Reconsideration 11 Plaintiff seeks second reconsideration on the grounds that the first amended 12 complaint renders the appraisal moot. ECF No. 50 at 2. Plaintiff argues that her

13 complaint “now focus exclusively on defendant USAA’s calculated deductions.” 14 ECF No. 50 at 4. In doing so, Plaintiff argues that “[o]nly the illegal deductions 15 from the ACV, which was used to formulate Defendants’ settlement offer, is at 16 issue now.” ECF No. 50 at 5.

17 Defendants counter Plaintiff’s argument on the grounds that appraisal 18 remains necessary where Plaintiff’s same factual allegations demonstrate an injury 19 necessary to a CPA claim and standing. ECF No. 61 at 5-10; ECF No. 65 at 6-13.

20 1 The parties disagree about the underlying nature of this dispute. Defendants 2 characterize it as a valuation dispute regarding the actual cash value of Plaintiff’s

3 vehicle. ECF No. 61 at 5; ECF No. 65 at 5. Plaintiff frames it as a dispute over 4 the legality of a condition adjustment deduction that affects vehicle valuation. 5 ECF No. 67 at 3. Viewed either way, Plaintiff’s alleged damage concerns the

6 undervaluation of her vehicle. 7 1. CPA Damages 8 Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s remaining CPA claim triggers appraisal. 9 ECF No. 61 at 5-9. A CPA claim requires “(1) an unfair or deceptive practice, (2)

10 in trade or commerce, (3) that affects the public interest, (4) which causes injury to 11 the party in his or her business or property, and (5) which injury is causally linked 12 to the unfair or deceptive act.” Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco

13 Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash. 2d 778, 784-85 (1986). Damage is integral to proving a 14 CPA violation. 15 While this Court previously recognized that Plaintiff asserted regulatory 16 violations outside of the four corners of the insurance contract (ECF No. 40 at 6),

17 Plaintiff’s vehicle value remains at issue. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff 18 continues to allege that the undervaluation “resulted in an underpayment of $793.” 19 ECF No. 49 at 13, ¶ 4.37. Plaintiff’s argument is unclear and unpersuasive when

20 she claims illegal actual cash value deductions do not affect the valuation of her vehicle. ECF No. 50 at 5. Thus, where the valuation process continues to be 2|| challenged, an order compelling appraisal does not result in a clear error or 3|| manifest injustice. 4 2. Standing 5 Defendants also argue appraisal is necessary to evaluate Plaintiffs standing. 6|| ECF No. 61 at 9. Plaintiff only requests that if this Court finds that there is no standing, that the case be remanded back to state court. ECF No. 67 at 5-6. Under Article II of the Constitution, standing requires that a plaintiff have an injury-in- fact that is both “concrete and particularized.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 10}} 1540, 1545 (2016). As the Court finds that Plaintiff has pled a concrete and particularized injury in the undervaluation of her vehicle, standing is not dispositive for the purposes of this present motion. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 15 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. 17 DATED September 8, 2020. ig a yy A / PA. ia Miwa, O. Kies 19 on Xe THOMAS O. RICE <=> United States District Judge 20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR