Liberty Mutual class action lawsuit update - appeals court reveals decision

A call by an appeals courtroom has decided {that a} class motion in opposition to Liberty Mutual Insurance coverage and its contractor over claims for totaled vehicles could be “unmanageable.”

The category-action lawsuit filed in opposition to Liberty Mutual and its valuation contractor CCC Clever Options claimed breach of contract and unfair commerce practices. The grievance argued that Liberty’s insurance coverage coverage required cost of the “precise money worth” of a totaled car, however CCC Clever Options assigns valuation to automobiles primarily based on their costs in personal transactions as an alternative of dealership costs. Plaintiffs additionally accused Liberty of adjusting the worth proven on the CCC studies and claimed that the “situation changes” violated Washington state regulation.

Whereas the case managed to push by way of a movement to dismiss, a Tacoma, WA district courtroom decide denied it class-action certification.

Final week, the ninth US Circuit Court docket of Appeals affirmed the district courtroom decide’s determination to disclaim class-action standing.

“If there was no damage, then there was no breach of contract or unfair commerce apply,” mentioned Circuit Decide Ryan Nelson in a written determination, including that “determining whether or not every plaintiff was injured could be an individualized course of,” and would finally be “unmanageable.”

CCC’s legal professionals issued an announcement on the choice, calling it “significantly impactful in mild of quite a few putative class actions – all involving comparable claims in opposition to CCC and its insurer clients – which are nonetheless pending.”

JD Supra reported that insurers might use the choice as a precedent in instances involving different traces of insurance coverage reminiscent of property, the place there are disputes over precise money worth or substitute value worth.

Reuters reached out to John DeStefano of Hagens Berman, who argued the attraction on behalf of the plaintiffs, for remark, and the lawyer mentioned that they’re “evaluating choices.”

Supply hyperlink

Share this post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.