Leeana Lara, et al. v. First National Insurance Compa, et al. case note.
Case description
In an auto insurance diversity action, the panel upheld the district court’s decision to deny a proposed damages class certification. To produce its assessments, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Liberty Mutual, a vehicle insurer, and CCC Intelligent Solutions, Liberty’s firm. CCC’s report on the value of “similar cars” is used by Liberty in its valuation approach. CCC reduces the value of a totaled car to account for the disparity between the average car owned by a private individual and the cars for sale at dealerships. Plaintiffs’ vehicles were totaled, and Liberty used the disputed downward condition adjustment to value them. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty broke its contracts with its insureds and that both firms broke Washington’s unfair trade practices legislation and engaged in a civil conspiracy.
Case citation
21-35126 – Leeana Lara, et al. v. First National Insurance Compa, et al
Appellant
Cameron Lundquist, Leeana Lara
Appellee
CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc., First National Insurance Company of America, First National Insurance
Plaintiff
Leeana Lara et al
Defendant
First National Insurance Compa, et al
Appellant attorney firm
Liberty breached its contracts with its insureds, according to Leeana Lara, and both firms violated Washington’s unfair trade practices legislation and engaged in a civil conspiracy. Individual questions predominated over common questions, and individualized trials were preferable to a class action, so the district court declined to certify the proposed class.
Appellant attorney who argued the case
Lara Bahar
Appellee attorney firm
The district court denied Liberty’s motion to dismiss, finding that the relevant regulation applied to the modifications and that Plaintiffs had adequately established their claims. Plaintiffs subsequently requested that the district court certify a class of all people whose appraisals reflected the contested revision.
Appellee attorney who argued the case
Chad Hansen
Synopsis of the case
The district court refused to certify a proposed damages class in this auto insurance case, holding that individual questions trumped common questions and that individualized trials were superior to a class action. We affirm because neither holding was an abuse of discretion.
The issue in this instance is how insurance companies value totaled cars. To produce its assessments, plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist filed a lawsuit against Liberty Mutual, a motor insurer, and CCC Intelligent Solutions, Liberty’s firm. Plaintiffs claim Liberty broke its contracts with its insureds, and both corporations broke Washington’s unfair trading practices legislation.
Appellant’s argument
Lara presented her case to the commissioner, who decided not to pursue the matter further. Plaintiffs instead sued Liberty and CCC for breach of contract and unfair trade practices because the regulations did not establish a private right of action. Because certain causes of action necessitate proof of injury, the district court was proper in using “the famous basketball phrase,’no harm, no foul.'” There was no breach of contract or unfair business practice if there was no injury. Because determining whether each plaintiff was damaged would be a unique procedure, the district court did not misuse its discretion in ruling that individual questions predominated.
Appellee’s argument
To determine if there was an injury, the district court would need to investigate the car’s true value. Second, the class could include a plaintiff for whom Liberty employed the CCC report in conjunction with the disputed condition adjustment but ultimately made a higher offer, either due to an upward adjustment or as a result of talks. This plaintiff’s case would necessitate a deeper dive into the facts. Finally, a plaintiff who got the CCC report but had the car appraised could be included in this class. A specialized investigation would be required in this plaintiff’s instance as well.
Appellant’s rebuttal argument
For the same reason, the district court’s decision that there was no superiority was not a misuse of discretion. A class action would be unmanageable in this case because it would include adjudicating problems particular to each class member’s claim. Individual trials would be a more appropriate way to resolve these difficulties. The district court’s decision that there was no superiority was thus not arbitrary.
Conclusion
Individual questions predominate over common ones, and individual trials are preferable to a class action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion. We won’t go into the rest of the Defendants’ points. The order of the district court is upheld.
Reference;
Lara v. First National Insurance Co., No. 21-35126 (9th Cir. 2022)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-35126/21-35126-2022-02-