Hop v. SAFECO INS. CO. OF ILLINOIS
261 P.3d 981
Mont.2011Background
- Hop, owner of a 2006 Chevrolet Corvette, was in an automobile collision caused by a Safeco insured in November 2007.
- Safeco paid repair costs but Hop claimed residual diminished value (RDV) was not compensated, arguing it is an element of damages.
- Hop demanded RDV in December 2007; Safeco investigated but sent a misrouted letter and closed the file in January 2008 without RDV payment.
- In March 2008, Hop filed a class-action complaint seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary RDV damages on behalf of similarly situated third parties damaged by Safeco.
- The district court certified Hop’s proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2) after finding Safeco’s RDV handling to be a widespread practice and lacking written investigation procedures.
- Safeco appealed, arguing Hop lacked standing to pursue third-party UTPA claims under § 33-18-242(6)(b) until underlying claims were settled or adjudicated; the issue framed is whether class certification was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was class certification an abuse of discretion? | Hop argues class-wide UTPA claims are ripe due to widespread practice | Safeco contends individual standing/barriers under § 33-18-242(6)(b) prevent certification | Yes; district court abused discretion by certifying before individual standing under § 33-18-242(6)(b) was satisfied |
| Is Hop's UTPA claim for RDV ripe under § 33-18-242(6)(b)? | Hop seeks declaratory relief encompassing RDV without awaiting settlement/judgment | Safeco argues RDV is not an advance, not reasonably in dispute, and thus not ripe | RDV not ripe; § 33-18-242(6)(b) prevents third-party action until underlying claim resolves |
| Does Ridley permit UDJA-based relief before underlying claim resolution for RDV? | Hop relies on Ridley to permit declaratory relief prior to underlying claim resolution | Ridley does not authorize RDV-like damages before underlying claim resolution; RDV is not advance medical expenses | Ridley not controlling for RDV; RDV is not advance not reasonably in dispute; UDJA relief cannot bypass § 33-18-242(6)(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridley v. Guaranty Natl. Ins. Co., 286 Mont. 325, 951 P.2d 987 (Mont. 1997) (advance payment of undisputed expenses governs UDJA/UTPA relief)
- DuBray v. Farmers Ins. Exh., 2001 MT 251, 307 Mont. 134, 36 P.3d 897 (Mont. 2001) (withdrawn damages not reasonably in dispute not payable in advance)
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2000 MT 153, 300 Mont. 123, 2 P.3d 834 (Mont. 2000) (advance payment of undisputed elements not applicable to RDV)
- Gonzales v. Mont. Power Co., 2010 MT 117, 356 Mont. 351, 233 P.3d 328 (Mont. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for class certification)
- Ferguson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2008 MT 109, 342 Mont. 380, 180 P.3d 1164 (Mont. 2008) (UTPA and related considerations in insurance claims)
- DuBray v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 2001 MT 251, 307 Mont. 134, 36 P.3d 897 (Mont. 2001) (distinguishes advance payable damages from general damages)