Williamson v. Integon National Insurance Company
2:21-cv-01450
W.D. Wash.Nov 28, 2022Background
- On Jan 17, 2021 Williamson filed a claim with Integon, stating his 2012 Mazda had been struck in a hit-and-run while parked on the street outside his apartment.
- Integon inspected the vehicle and obtained expert analysis (TCC) finding the damage inconsistent with a parked hit-and-run and instead consistent with a vehicle in motion striking a narrow, pole-type object.
- TCC’s supplemental report relied on a physical inspection and the vehicle’s Event Data Recorder (EDR), showing speed prior to impact and illuminated headlights, reinforcing the in-motion collision conclusion.
- Integon denied coverage for material misrepresentation; Williamson sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of IFCA and the CPA, then removed the case to federal court.
- Williamson did not oppose Integon’s motion for summary judgment; Williamson’s expert (Luker) produced a report supportive of his account but the court found it unconvincing and incomplete (missing witness declaration).
- The court granted summary judgment for Integon, concluding Williamson intentionally made material misrepresentations that bar coverage and preclude extra-contractual claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williamson intentionally made material misrepresentations that bar coverage | Williamson maintained his car was damaged by a hit-and-run while parked | Integon relied on inspection, TCC reports, and EDR data showing an in-motion impact into a pole-like object, indicating fabrication | Court: Williamson intentionally and materially misrepresented the cause/circumstances; coverage barred |
| Whether expert evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact | Luker report concluded damage consistent with Williamson’s account | TCC inspections, photos, and EDR data contradicted Luker; Luker’s report lacked supporting declaration and compared dissimilar impacts | Court: Luker’s report insufficient and unconvincing; no triable issue exists |
| Whether extra-contractual claims (bad faith, IFCA, CPA) survive despite alleged misrepresentations | Williamson contended Integon wrongfully denied benefits and mishandled the claim | Integon argued intentional material misrepresentation precludes contract and extra-contractual claims under Washington law | Court: Misrepresentation precludes bad faith, IFCA, and CPA claims; summary judgment for Integon |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 178 Wash. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (insured who commits fraud forfeits claim; intentional misrepresentation bars extra-contractual claims)
- Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Cox, 110 Wash. 2d 643 (Wash. 1988) (Washington precedent precluding bad faith/CPA claims when insured intentionally misrepresents)
- Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 153 Wash. App. 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (materiality can be decided as a matter of law when reasonable minds could not differ)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: court assesses whether a genuine issue for trial exists)
- Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2017) (applies familiar summary judgment standard in the Ninth Circuit)
- Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must present non-speculative evidence of specific facts to survive summary judgment)
- Onyon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 859 F. Supp. 1338 (W.D. Wash. 1994) (insurance clause voiding coverage for material misstatements is enforceable)