Vorhees v. Esurance Insurance Services Inc

Opinion

The Honorable Richard A. Jones

2 3 4 5 6 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 1, | JUSTIN R. VORHEES, et al., and KASSI L. BLANCHARD, spouses, 12 NO. 2:23-cv-00420- RAJ Plaintiff(s), 18 {PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING 44 || YS- THE PARTIES JOINT MOTION TO ENTER FINDINGS AND TO 15 || ESURANCE INSURANCE SERVICES, CERTIFY APPEAL UNDER INC., an ALLSTATE INSURANCE CR54(b) ‘6 || SERVICES, INC. company, foreign || corporations doing business in the State of Washington, 18 49 || Defendants. 20 Currently before the Court is the parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to

Certify Appeal Under CR 54(b). Having reviewed the motion, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, and no opposition to the motion being filed, the Court hereby 23 rules as follows: 24 In support of its Minute Order, Dkt. 56, the Court FINDS: 25 26 BURI FUNSTON PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B) MUMFORD 2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 1 vet

1. With respect to the Orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant Esurance Motion for Partial Summary ° Judgment, Dkt. 54: the dispositive orders would be final in the sense that each such order ‘ is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims 5 action, were it not for the presence of the 1* party claim for damages under the Plaintiffs’ 6 policy; and there is no just reason for delay to appeal the dispositive orders. 7 8 12. The reasons for Rule 54(b) certification via this order include: 9 a. Plaintiffs seek to appeal the dispositive orders. Bases for the appeal that 49 ||Plaintiffs intend to assert include but are not limited to: (1) That this Court engaged in 4, impermissible fact-finding in dismissing Plaintiffs’ insurance bad faith, IFCA, and 2 WCPA claims, (2) this Court failed to appropriately apply the standard in Beasley v.

3 GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 23 Wn. App. 641, 517 P.3d 500 (2022), review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1028 (2023); and (3) this Court’s ruling as to the admissibility and relevance Plaintiffs’ insurance bad faith expert contradicts the court’s ruling that no reasonable juror could for Plaintiffs. b. No party opposes entry of this order. 7 c. No party will be prejudiced by appeal of the dispositive order prior to trial of the 18 lremaining claims in this action. 19 d. The common facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claim for damages under the Esurance 20 |}Uninsured Motorist Policy are central to the claims dismissed in the dispositive order: 91 Plaintiffs claims for insurance bad faith, violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, for damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. If, on appeal, the court 53. || Were to reverse this Court’s decision there is a significant risk that the trial would be

duplicative, a waste of judicial resources, an undue burden on the parties, and that the

0 trials may produce inconsistent results.

26 BURI FUNSTON PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B) MUMFORD 2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 2 well Mie oaas

e. The costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of

overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to the claims and parties involved in the dispositive ° order. ‘ f. The following order is in the best interest of efficient judicial administration. 5 6 The Court further FINDS that good cause exists to temporarily lift the stay 7 |limposed by this Court, so that the Court may consider and decide the above-referenced 8 ||motion, and that to reimpose that stay upon entry of this Order is in the interests of 9 |justice. 10 IT IS ORDERED: 4 A. The Motion to Enter Findings in Support of Order Granting Motion for Rule 2 54(b) Certification, is GRANTED; 13 B. The stay entered by this Court, Dkt. 56, is LIFTED for purposes of consideration of the Parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to Certify Appeal Under "8 CR 54(b), shall be REINSTATED, without further action of this Court, upon entry of "© Order. 17 18 Dated this the 29" day of August, 2024. 19 (Keckud K

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

24 25 26 BURI FUNSTON PROPOSED ORDER CERTIFYING APPEAL UNDER CR54(B) MUMFORD 2:23-CV-00420-RAJ - 3 ee