United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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,
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.
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.
Standard of Review for Summary Judgment
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)).
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).
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
One: Alleged Bad Faith
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 ...