Tessa Bradley and Tyrell Bradly, a married couple v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05458
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 TESSA BRADLEY and TYRELL 8 BRADLY, a married couple, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-5458-RSL

9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 11 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANDLING EXPERT AMERICA, an insurance company doing 12 business in Washington, 13 14 Defendant. 15 This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s 16 17 Claims Handling Expert” filed Oct. 24, 2025 (Dkt. # 20); defendant’s reply filed Nov. 14, 18 2025 (Dkt. # 29); plaintiffs’ response filed Nov. 17, 2025 (Dkt. # 30); and defendant’s 19 second reply filed Nov. 19, 2025 (Dkt. # 34). Having reviewed the motions and related 20 declarations (Dkts. # 21, # 31, # 32), as well as the record herein, the Court DENIES 21 22 defendant’s motion for the reasons explained below. 23 I. The Court Will Allow Plaintiff’s Untimely Response 24 Defendant filed its motion to exclude on Oct. 24, 2025. Dkt. # 20. Defendant’s 25 motion is not a Daubert motion, but rather a motion to exclude plaintiffs’ claims handling 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S 1 expert, Jack Thomas, based on “the failure of his report to comply with the disclosure 2 requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B).” Dkt. # 20 at 1. Thus, the briefing schedule for 3 defendant’s motion was governed by LCR 7(d)(3) and plaintiffs’ response was due by 4 5 Nov. 10, 2025. 6 Defendant filed a reply on Nov. 14, 2025, noting that plaintiff had failed to respond 7 and arguing that plaintiffs’ failure to respond is sufficient basis to grant defendant’s motion 8 to exclude. Dkt. # 29 at 2 (citing LCR 7(b)(2)). Plaintiffs then filed a response on Nov. 17, 9 10 2025, and asserted, incorrectly, that their response was timely. Dkts. # 30, # 33 at ¶ 5, # 34 11 at 1. As defendant notes, it appears that plaintiffs relied on the former Local Civil Rules 12 when concluding that their response was timely. Dkt. # 34 at 1. Although the Court could 13 grant defendant’s motion based solely on plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their response, the 14 15 Court will allow plaintiffs’ untimely response in this instance and trusts that counsel will 16 not make this mistake again. LCR 7(b)(2).1 17 II. Although Borderline, the Report from Plaintiffs’ Expert Will Be 18 Allowed 19 As defendant explains: 20 21 Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires that all retained experts produce a report containing a “complete statement” of all opinions the witness will express as well as: (i) “the 22 basis and reasons for them”; (ii) “the facts or data considered by the witness in 23 forming them”; (iii) “any exhibits that will be used”; (v) a “list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert”; and 24

25 1 Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant’s motion to exclude should be denied based on defendant’s failure to meet and confer lacks merit. Dkt. # 30 at 1. The meet and confer requirement does not apply to defendant’s motion. Compare 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) with 37(c)(1). See also Earsley v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-01379-JHC, 2023 WL 4574844 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2023). Further, plaintiffs’ citations to the LCRs are inapposite. Dkt. # 30 at 1. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S 1 (vi) “a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.” Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 2

3 Dkt. # 20 at 1:22–2:1. Defendant argues that “[t]he report produced by Plaintiff’s 4 purported claims handling expert, Jack Thomas, contains none of this information.” 5 Mr. Thomas’s report is indeed riddled with conclusory statements. See Nelson v. 6 Thurston Cnty., No. C18-5184RSL, 2022 WL 4652376, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7 30, 2022) (conclusory statements are inadequate). However, the report does broadly 8 9 state that in Mr. Thomas’s opinion, based on his experience as a professional adjuster 10 and the facts of this case, defendant violated unspecified provisions of WAC 284-30- 11 330. Dkt. # 21-10 at 4–5 (“I could quote the regulations and explain the violations; 12 however they constitute violations of over half of the Regulations, if not more.”). Mr. 13 14 Thomas’s report also appears to provide some reasons for this opinion. For example, 15 his report states: “When the insureds submitted their claim with Proof of Loss many 16 months after the event, Safeco essentially ignored the submission. Safeco’s regulatory 17 obligation was to provide a response to the claim.” Dkt. # 21-10 at 5. 18 The Court agrees with defendant that Mr. Thomas’s report lacks exhibits that 19 20 will be used to summarize or support his opinions; a list of all publications authored by 21 Mr. Thomas in the previous 10 years; a list of all other cases in which, during the 22 previous four years, Mr. Thomas testified as an expert; and a statement of the 23 compensation that Mr. Thomas is to be paid for his study and testimony. Dkts. # 20 at 24 1:22–2:1, # 21-10. However, the “Declaration of Jack Thomas” that was filed with 25 26 plaintiffs’ response on Nov. 17, 2025, brings his report into sufficient (though ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S 1 hardly exemplary) compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), and the Court has 2 already forgiven the untimeliness of plaintiffs’ response. While plaintiffs’ actions 3 here are unimpressive, the Court finds that they are harmless with regard to 4 5 defendant, and thus the automatic exclusion of Mr. Thomas’s report is not 6 warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 7 III. Conclusion 8 For all the foregoing reasons, defendant’s “Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Claims 9 10 Handling Expert” (Dkt. # 20) is DENIED. 11

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated this 14th day of January, 2026.

16 17 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S