Wendy Nelson-Lloyd and Christopher Lloyd v. Auto Club Mapfre Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Feb 26, 2026 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 WENDY NELSON-LLOYD, and 10 CHRISTOPHER LLOYD, No. 2:25-CV-00188-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 13 AUTO CLUB MAPFRE INSURANCE COMPEL, MOTION TO 14 COMPANY, EXTEND PRETRIAL 15 Defendant. DEADLINES, AND MOTION 16 FOR RECONSIDERATION 17 18 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 21, Defendant’s 19 Motion to Compel Appraisal, ECF No. 22, the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend 20 Pretrial Deadlines, ECF No. 31, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 21 No. 34. Plaintiffs are represented by Isaac Castaneda, Isaac Ruiz, and Kathryn M. 22 Knudsen. Defendant is represented by Dylan R. Knapp and Rory W. Leid, III. The 23 Motions were considered without oral argument. 24 Background 25 In 2024, a fire occurred at Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs had an insurance 26 policy through Defendant. After the fire, the parties disagreed over the extent of 27 the insurance policy coverage. Plaintiffs submitted an Insurance Fair Conduct Act 28 notice on February 25, 2025, and filed this lawsuit against Defendant on May 5, 1 2025, making claims for breach of contract, bad faith, negligent claims handling, 2 and Consumer Protection Act violations. The case was removed to this Court on 3 June 3, 2025. 4 1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR 5 RECONSIDERATION (ECF NOS. 21 AND 34) 6 Plaintiffs request the Court enter an Order compelling Defendant to provide 7 its employee personnel files, claims department financial metrics, and post- 8 litigation claims file materials. This Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion 9 for Protective Order regarding these materials, noting that the requests were 10 relevant and proportionate to the claims in this matter, ECF No. 25. As such, 11 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. 12 Regarding the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective 13 Order, ECF No. 25, Plaintiff requests clarification on whether the Order applied to 14 the complete claims file, including all claims-handling materials created both 15 before and after the filing of this lawsuit through the present. Upon review of the 16 Order and relevant Motions, the Court notes the inclusion of the temporal 17 limitation, “Plaintiff is not seeking materials created” between February 25, 2025, 18 and May 5, 2025, was incorrect. Discovery of all claims handling activity, 19 regardless of timing, is permitted in insurance bad-faith litigation. Cedell v. 20 Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 176 Wn.2d 686, 696 (2013). As such, Defendant is 21 directed to provide the entire claims file as requested in Plaintiff’s Motion to 22 Compel, ECF No. 21. 23 2. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL APPRAISAL (ECF 24 NO. 22) 25 Defendant requests the Court enter an Order directing Plaintiffs to engage in 26 the appraisal process outlined in Plaintiff’s insurance policy. Defendant has 27 previously requested Plaintiffs engage in the appraisal process, which Plaintiffs 28 denied. In their response to the Motion, Plaintiffs assert appraisal is not appropriate 1 as they have already engaged in repairs to their home, and appraisal at this stage 2 runs the risk of delaying resolution, unjustifiable speculation, and prejudice to 3 Plaintiffs. 4 The enforcement of appraisal provisions in insurance contracts is warranted 5 when appraisal provides a pathway to a simple, inexpensive, and speedy 6 determination of the extent of the loss. Keesling v. W. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Wn. App. 7 841, 845 (1974). Although instigation of litigation does not bar a party from 8 requesting appraisal, the timing and justification of delay is relevant. Id. at 847. 9 Although appraisal could promote a faster resolution of the matter, 10 compelling appraisal at this time is inappropriate. Repairs are already underway at 11 Plaintiffs’ home, and the level of speculation necessary to complete the appraisal 12 process runs the risk of prejudicing Plaintiff and outweighs the potential benefits of 13 engaging in appraisal. 14 3. STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL 15 DEADLINES (ECF NO. 31) 16 Lastly, the parties stipulate and request the Court extend certain pretrial 17 discovery and motion deadlines, as additional time is needed to complete discovery 18 and prepare expert reports. The Court finds good cause to grant the Motion. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 21, and Motion for 21 Reconsideration, ECF No. 34, are GRANTED. 22 a. Within fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order, 23 Defendant shall serve upon Plaintiffs any and all documents responsive to 24 Plaintiffs’ requests for employee personnel files, claims department financial 25 metrics, and the entirety of Plaintiffs’ claim file. 26 2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Appraisal, ECF No. 22, is DENIED. 27 3. The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines, ECF No. 28 31, is GRANTED. 1 a. The deadline for Initial Expert Disclosures set for February 24, 2026, is RESET for March 24, 2026. 3 b. The deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures set for March 26, 2026, is RESET for April 23, 2026. 5 C. The deadline to file Daubert Motions set for April 3, 2026, is RESET for May 1, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 8|| file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and set case management deadlines 9)| accordingly. 10 DATED this 26th day of February 2026. 11

14 Stan Bastian 15 Chief United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL, MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL