Nesbitt v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company
2:11-cv-02117
W.D. Wash.Oct 29, 2012Background
- Two vehicles insured by Progressive under a single policy; PIP up to $10,000 and UIM up to $25,000.
- Accident on July 15, 2010; plaintiff injured when another driver collided with Mitsubishi and Mercedes.
- Progressive paid PIP after reassessing claim; disclosed partial payments: $9,217.28 PIP, $3,043.29 Mitsubishi, $3,600 Mercedes, and $25,000 UIM.
- Plaintiff sued Progressive in state court for breach of contract, CPA, and IFCA; case removed to federal court.
- Partial summary judgment granted to dismiss contract claims; remaining claims include CPA, IFCA, and bad faith; Progressive now seeks summary judgment on all remaining claims.
- Court denied continuance and declined to strike exhibits; granted summary judgment against plaintiff on all remaining claims.]
- Note: procedural posture and factual sequence relevant to analysis of bad faith, CPA, and IFCA defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff state a bad-faith claim | Nesbitt alleges Progressive mishandled PIP/UIM and communications. | Plaintiff cannot show harm; no genuine issue of material fact. | Bad faith claim failed; no evidence of actual harm. |
| Whether plaintiff state's CPA claim | Unfair/deceptive acts harmed Nesbitt; communications delay. | No evidence of injury; conduct insufficient for CPA relief. | CPA claim granted summary judgment for Progressive. |
| Whether plaintiff state's IFCA claim | IFCA violations entitle treble damages for denial of benefits. | Not denied coverage; no unreasonable denial or damages shown. | IFCA claim failed as a matter of law; no denial of coverage. |
| Whether the remaining claims were properly dismissed | Claims should proceed to trial on unresolved issues. | No genuine dispute; motions for summary judgment granted on remaining claims. | Court granted summary judgment on all remaining claims. |
| Whether the continuance was warranted | Denied; vague discovery requests do not justify continuance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Assocs. v. American States Ins. Co., 136 Wn.2d 269 (Wash. 1998) (insurer bad-faith theory independent of coverage outcome)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, Inc., 165 Wn.2d 122 (Wash. 2009) (harm element required for bad-faith claims)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Osborn, 104 Wn. App. 686 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (unfair claims settlement practices regulate bad-faith duties)
- Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2011) (authenticates exhibits; admissibility considerations in response)
- Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co., 150 Wn.2d 478 (Wash. 2003) (insurer bad-faith framework applied to WA law)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for Rule 56(d) continuances/related discovery)