Background - April 2011 car collision between a UWPD officer (Sattarov) and GEICO-insured driver (Murphy) produced multiple third‑party claims; GEICO initially communicated inconsistent fault apportionments to claimants and UW. - UW risk manager Winslow‑Nason and GEICO adjuster Kravitz agreed (by email) to a 50/50 apportionment (the Agreement); GEICO later repudiated the Agreement after larger claims emerged. - UW settled a $19,500 claim (Lawrence) and sought GEICO reimbursement under the Agreement; GEICO refused and denied liability for the incident. - UW sued GEICO for breach of contract and later (shortly before trial) amended to add a private Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim alleging unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce; GEICO answered and proceeded to trial. - Jury found the Agreement binding, awarded $9,750 on breach of contract and $300,000 on the CPA claim; trial court awarded UW attorney fees (~$495,034) and UW sought fees on appeal. - GEICO appealed, challenging leave to amend, UW's standing to bring a private CPA claim, sufficiency of evidence, remittitur, and fee awards; Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (University) | Defendant's Argument (GEICO) | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Leave to amend to add CPA claim | Late amendment acceptable; evidence underlying CPA was in GEICO's possession and claims rely on same evidence as breach claim | Amendment was prejudicial, untimely after discovery cutoff, and expanded damages (treble fees) | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no prejudice because evidence was GEICO's and claims overlapped | | Standing to bring private CPA claim | UW is a "person" (political subdivision) under RCW 19.86 and may sue for injury to business or property even if not an insured | Only insureds may pursue insurer‑based CPA/bad faith claims | UW may bring a private CPA claim here; it did not assert insured‑only bad faith or regulatory per se theory | | Sufficiency of evidence for CPA elements (unfair/deceptive, injury, causation, public interest) | GEICO repudiation and Kravitz misrepresentation had capacity to deceive, caused UW to pay/defend claims and lose staff time; GEICO stipulated public interest impact | Evidence insufficient to show unfair/deceptive conduct, causation, or injury; any misstatement was a clerical error | Viewing evidence favorably to UW, substantial evidence supported unfair/deceptive acts, injury, causation; GEICO had stipulated public interest impact | | Remittitur / excessiveness of CPA damages | CPA damages supported by exposure (policy limits and number of injured claimants) and costs UW incurred defending/settling | $300,000 CPA award excessive, result of passion/prejudice; trial errors prejudiced GEICO | Award within range of evidence; not shockingly excessive or product of passion/prejudice; trial court did not abuse discretion | | Attorney fees (trial & appeal) under CPA | Prevailing CPA plaintiff entitled to reasonable fees and costs; hours/rates and multiplier justified | Fees improper or unsupported | Trial court properly calculated lodestar and applied multiplier; appellate fees recoverable under CPA | ### Key Cases Cited Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (public interest requirement and CPA elements) Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co., 166 Wn.2d 27 (who may bring private CPA actions; scope re insurers) Wilson v. Horsley, 137 Wn.2d 500 (abuse‑of‑discretion review of motions to amend pleadings) Caruso v. Local Union No. 690, 100 Wn.2d 343 (CR 15 and liberality of pleadings amendment) Tank v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 105 Wn.2d 381 (limits on third‑party bad faith claims against insurers) Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (standard for remittitur and judicial reduction of jury verdicts) Mason v. Morta, America, Inc., 114 Wn.2d 842 (minimal injury suffices for CPA damages) Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co., 126 Wn.2d 50 (evidentiary view for JMOL) * Fisons Corp. v. Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n, 122 Wn.2d 299 (attorney fees on appeal under CPA)