Leeana Lara v. First National Insurance Comp, 25 F.4th 1134

Plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lundquist sued Liberty Mutual (and related Liberty entities) and CCC Intelligent Solutions over how totaled vehicles were valued.
Liberty used CCC valuation reports based on dealer comparables and applied a downward "condition adjustment" to account for difference between dealer-stock cars and typical private vehicles; CCC or Liberty could subsequently adjust values upward or negotiate higher offers, and appraisal procedures were available.
Washington regulations require insurers to itemize and justify deductions or additions in total-loss valuations, but those regulations are enforced by the state insurance commissioner and do not create a private cause of action.
Plaintiffs brought breach of contract, Washington Consumer Protection Act (unfair trade practices), and civil conspiracy claims, alleging the condition adjustment was not properly itemized or appropriate.
The district court found the named plaintiffs typical but denied certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), concluding individual questions predominated and a class action was not a superior, manageable method; the Ninth Circuit reviews that denial for abuse of discretion.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding individualized injury inquiries defeated predominance and made a class action unmanageable/superior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether common questions regarding the condition adjustment predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)	The condition adjustment is applied across the board, so common proof can show liability class-wide	Even if adjustment is common, liability also requires individualized proof of injury (actual cash value shortfall), so individual questions predominate	No predominance: individual injury inquiries defeat class-wide adjudication
Whether a regulatory violation alone establishes breach/unfair-practices without individualized harm	The regulations define "actual cash value," so a regulatory violation itself produces classwide harm (the amount of the adjustment)	The regulations lack a private right of action; contract and CPA claims require proof of injury or damages to each plaintiff	Held for Defendants: breach/CPA require individualized proof of injury; regulatory enforcement belongs to the commissioner
Whether a class action is the superior and manageable method	Class litigation is efficient because the adjustment is systematic and common	Class would be unmanageable because many claims require individual fact-finding (offers, negotiations, appraisals, compensating adjustments)	No superiority: individual trials are superior/manageable given individualized issues

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (discusses Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement for damages classes)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (explains cohesion and when class-wide proof can satisfy predominance)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (addresses class cohesion and predominance in class certification)
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing class-certification denials)
Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (review limited unless district court clearly errs in weighing certification factors)
Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court cannot err as to law in certification analysis)
C 1031 Props., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 301 P.3d 500 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (breach requires proximate damage to plaintiff)