Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 23, 2018

TABITHA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN, AN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan (“Foremost”)'s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Extra-Contractual Claims. Dkt. #21. Plaintiff Tabitha Williams opposes this Motion. Dkt. #27. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant Foremost in King County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), and violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”). Dkt. #1-3. On July 21, 2017, Defendant removed that case to this Court. Dkt. #1. On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding insurance coverage, Dkt. #9.

         On October, 3, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion, finding that “Ms. Williams was covered for the vandalism that occurred, and that Foremost breached the insurance contract by failing to pay.” Dkt. #18 at 8. Subsequently, Defendant Foremost paid Plaintiff $187, 001.43 in insurance benefits, which included $9, 787.89 in interest accrued. See Dkt. #21.

         Defendant Foremost now brings the instant motion seeking Summary Judgment against Plaintiff's remaining claims of bad faith, violation of the CPA, and violation of IFCA.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In ruling on summary judgment, a court does not weigh evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but “only determine[s] whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Crane v. Conoco, Inc., 41 F.3d 547, 549 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1992)).

         On a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Sullivan v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 365 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir. 2004). However, the nonmoving party must make a “sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof” to survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Further, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251. To meet this burden, the non-moving party must come forward with specific, admissible facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

         B. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

         Issue One: Alleged Bad Faith

         Foremost first moves this Court for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's claim of bad faith because Plaintiff cannot establish that its denial of coverage was unreasonable, frivolous, or unfounded. Dkt. #21 at 12. In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Foremost “treated Williams unfairly, Foremost placed its interests above Williams' interests, and Foremost'[s] acts, omissions, including, but not limited to, its violations of the Washington Administrative Code, constituted insurance bad faith.” Dkt. #1-3 at ¶ 5.1. In her Response, Plaintiff specifically alleges that Foremost unreasonably ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.