Case No. 92267-5
Oral Argument October 5, 2016

On Direct Appeal from Spokane County Superior Court

Issues as Framed by Appellant:

  1. Does the violation of a regulation governing the business of insurance claims handling practices provide an independent cause of action under RCW 48.30.015 (IFCA)?
  2. Was summary judgment in favor of State Farm inappropriate given State Farm’s violation of W AC 284-30-330(7) and RCW 48.30.015 (IFCA) as Appellant Perez was compelled by State Farm to submit to litigation to recover amounts due under his insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered?
  3. Was partial summary judgment in favor of Appellant Perez appropriate given State Farm’s violation ofWAC 284-30- 330(7) and RCW 48.30.015 (IFCA) after Appellant Perez was compelled by State Farm to submit to litigation to recover amounts due under his insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered?
  4. Was summary judgment in favor of State Farm inappropriate given specific issues of material fact shown by Appellant Perez evidencing State Farm’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation in the handling of his UIM claim and payment of his UIM benefits?
  5. Was summary judgment in favor of State Farm inappropriate given the need for continuing discovery into factual issues of State Farm’s incentive pay programs?

Issues as Framed by Respondent:

  1. Did the trial court properly dismiss the insured’s IFCA claim where the plain language of the statute does not provide him with a cause of action for the insurer’s alleged regulatory violation absent an unreasonable denial of coverage or benefits and he subsequently failed to prove an unreasonable denial of coverage or benefits occurred?
  2. Did the trial court properly dismiss the insured’s CPA claim on summary judgment where he failed to establish the insurer committed a per se violation of the CPA and he thereafter failed to prove all five required elements of the claim?
  3. Did the trial court properly dismiss the insured’s bad faith claim on summary judgment where there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably evaluated his UIM claim and it instead legitimately disputed both the cause of his injury and the amount of his damages?
  4. Did the trial court properly dismiss the insured’s negligence claim where he waived the claim and it duplicates his bad faith claim regardless?

Briefs: