Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company

DecidedOctober 31, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01651

StatusUnknown

This text of Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company (Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAVID WAILES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01651-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. REGARDING SUBJECT 13 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a MATTER JURISDICTION 14 foreign insurance company, and DAVID BAMFORD, an individual, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This matter arises out of an auto insurance 19 claim related to a motor vehicle collision. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (complaint). On October 30, 2023, 20 Defendant Allstate Insurance Company filed a notice of removal from King County Superior 21 Court. See Dkt. No. 1 (notice). Defendant Allstate asserts diversity jurisdiction on the basis that 22 Defendant David Bamford, an employee of Defendant Allstate who handled the insurance claim, 23 is fraudulently joined as a party to the case and should be disregarded for purposes of 24 determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Id. at 3–4. 1 This Court recently addressed the question of whether individual insurance adjuster 2 employees—like Mr. Bamford—may be liable for certain Washington law claims, including the 3 common law bad-faith claim asserted here. See Xu v. Weis, No. C22-118, 2023 WL 2142683 4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2023). The Court rejected Defendant Allstate’s claim—repeated here

5 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12–13)—that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Keodalah v. Allstate 6 Ins. Co., 449 P.3d 1040 (2019), forecloses such a claim. See Xu, 2023 WL 2142683, at *3–4. Its 7 decision was in harmony with other decisions of this District. See id. at *4 (collecting cases). 8 Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be 9 remanded to King County Superior Court: 10 • Defendants SHALL respond within fourteen (14) days of this Order addressing 11 the issue of fraudulent joinder, as set forth in the Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1). 12 • Plaintiff SHALL submit a response within seven (7) days after Defendants’ 13 response to this Order. 14 • Any brief SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages.

15 • No reply brief is permitted. 16 Dated this 31st day of October 2023. 17 A 18 Tana Lin 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DAVID WAILES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01651-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. REGARDING SUBJECT 13 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a MATTER JURISDICTION 14 foreign insurance company, and DAVID BAMFORD, an individual, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This matter arises out of an auto insurance 19 claim related to a motor vehicle collision. See Dkt. No. 1-1 (complaint). On October 30, 2023, 20 Defendant Allstate Insurance Company filed a notice of removal from King County Superior 21 Court. See Dkt. No. 1 (notice). Defendant Allstate asserts diversity jurisdiction on the basis that 22 Defendant David Bamford, an employee of Defendant Allstate who handled the insurance claim, 23 is fraudulently joined as a party to the case and should be disregarded for purposes of 24 determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Id. at 3–4. 1 This Court recently addressed the question of whether individual insurance adjuster 2 employees—like Mr. Bamford—may be liable for certain Washington law claims, including the 3 common law bad-faith claim asserted here. See Xu v. Weis, No. C22-118, 2023 WL 2142683 4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 21, 2023). The Court rejected Defendant Allstate’s claim—repeated here

5 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12–13)—that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Keodalah v. Allstate 6 Ins. Co., 449 P.3d 1040 (2019), forecloses such a claim. See Xu, 2023 WL 2142683, at *3–4. Its 7 decision was in harmony with other decisions of this District. See id. at *4 (collecting cases). 8 Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be 9 remanded to King County Superior Court: 10 • Defendants SHALL respond within fourteen (14) days of this Order addressing 11 the issue of fraudulent joinder, as set forth in the Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1). 12 • Plaintiff SHALL submit a response within seven (7) days after Defendants’ 13 response to this Order. 14 • Any brief SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages.

15 • No reply brief is permitted. 16 Dated this 31st day of October 2023. 17 A 18 Tana Lin 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wailes v. Allstate Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wailes-v-allstate-insurance-company-wawd-2023.