United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
MARK D. KLEINSASSER, Plaintiff,
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND REQUESTING
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mark
Kleinsasser's (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand
(Dkt. 14). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder
of the file and hereby rules as follows:
April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Defendants Progressive Direct Insurance Company and
Progressive Max Insurance Company (collectively,
“Progressive”) in Pierce County Superior Court
for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1-2 (“Comp.”).
Plaintiff seeks to recover diminished value on a class-wide
basis and individual loss of use damages under the
Underinsured Motorists Property Damage (“UIM”)
provision of his insurance contract with Progressive.
Id. Plaintiff alleged that the total amount of
compensatory damages would be “approximately $3, 010,
28, 2017, Progressive removed the matter to this Court. Dkt.
28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand challenging both
the timing of the removal and Progressive's calculation
of damages. Dkt. 14. On August 28, 2017, Progressive
responded. Dkt. 24. On September 1, 2017, Plaintiff replied.
September 18, 2015, an uninsured driver hit Plaintiff's
vehicle causing significant damage. Comp., ¶ 1.8. The
vehicle was towed to a repair shop, and Plaintiff submitted a
claim to Progressive. Id. ¶ 6.7. Plaintiff was
without the use of his vehicle until November 24, 2015, and,
on two separate occasions, he returned the vehicle to the
repair shop for additional repairs. Id. ¶ 1.9.
Plaintiff alleges that Progressive failed to provide him with
a rental car or otherwise reimburse him for the loss of use
of his vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 6.7, 6.11.
Plaintiff also alleges that Progressive failed to compensate
him for the diminished value of his vehicle. Id.
claims that Progressive's failure to compensate its
insured for diminished value has been “systematic and
continuous” and has affected a large number of insureds
over time. Id. ¶ 5.1. As such, Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class as follows:
All PROGRESSIVE insureds with Washington policies issued in
Washington State, where the insured's vehicle damages
were covered under Underinsured Motorist coverage, and
1. the repair estimates on the vehicle (including any
supplements) totaled at least $1, 000; and
2. the vehicle was no more than six years old (model year
plus five years) and had less than 90, 000 miles on it at the
time of the accident; and
3. the vehicle suffered structural (frame) damage and/or
deformed sheet metal and/or required body or paint work.
Excluded from the Class are (a) claims involving leased
vehicles or total losses, and (b) the assigned Judge, the
Judge's staff and family.
Id., ¶ 5.3. Plaintiff alleged that “the
total amount sought in compensatory damages in this action
will be approximately $3, 010, 903, ” based on
“approximately 2107 claims” and “$1429 per
claim on average as the ...