A Factual Dispute is Enough to Require Trial

August 29, 2026

4 Views 0

SaveSavedRemoved 0

Post 5437

Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Avoids Summary Judgment

In Riley and Rebecca Ross v. Allstate Vehicle And Property Insurance Company, and Illinois Corporation, No. 2:25-CV-00006-JAG, United States District Court, E.D. Washington (August 18, 2026), Pending before the USDC was Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment the plaintiffs brought claims against Allstate arising from its handling of an insurance claim. They alleged Allstate failed to make proper payment, adequately investigate the loss, retain an expert, respond to communications, and properly value damages including alternative living expenses and damage to a hydronic heating system.

Plaintiffs argued Defendant failed “to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies.”

ISSUES

Allstate sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), Consumer Protection Act (CPA), insurance bad faith, and negligent claims handling. Allstate also sought to bar recovery of attorney’s fees.

LAW

The USDC applied the summary judgment standard: summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

For the IFCA claim, Washington law permits suit where an insurer unreasonably denies coverage or payment of benefits. The USDC rejected an expanded “constructive denial” theory.

For the CPA claim, the plaintiffs had to show an unfair or deceptive act, trade or commerce, public interest impact, injury, and causation. Violations of certain insurance regulations can constitute per se unfair or deceptive acts.

For bad faith, plaintiffs had to show unreasonable conduct by the insurer. Summary judgment is improper if material facts remain disputed regarding the reasonableness of the insurer’s actions. Fees are available in coverage disputes, not merely disputes over claim valuation or damages.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS

Where the insurer pays or offers to pay a paltry amount that is not in line with the losses claimed, is not based on a reasoned evaluation of the facts (as known or, in some cases, as would have been known had the insurer adequately investigated the claim), and would not compensate the insured for the loss at issue, the benefits promised in the policy are effectively denied.

The court dismissed the IFCA claim because Allstate had not denied coverage or benefits. The court concluded that Washington law does not recognize a constructive denial theory under IFCA where the insurer made substantial payment but disputed the amount owed.

The CPA claim survived in part. The court dismissed CPA theories based on failure to adopt investigation standards, failure to affirm or deny coverage, failure to acknowledge communications, and settlement standards because plaintiffs failed to identify sufficient supporting facts. However, CPA theories based on allegedly unreasonable investigation and alleged underpayment sufficient to compel litigation survived because factual disputes remained.

The bad faith and negligent claims handling claims also survived. Plaintiffs presented enough evidence to create a factual dispute over whether Allstate’s investigation and valuation were reasonable, including the lack of an in-person adjuster inspection and handling of the heating-system damage.

The court rejected fees because the dispute concerned claim valuation and damages, not coverage. Allstate acknowledged coverage. The disagreement was over the extent and value of the loss.

CONCLUSION

Allstate’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. The IFCA claim was dismissed with prejudice. CPA claims based on WAC 284-30-330(4) and (7) remained. The plaintiffs’ breach of contract, bad faith, declaratory judgment, and negligent claims handling claims remained pending.

The USDC concluded that as to the IFCA claims, no issue of genuine factual dispute exists, consequently summary judgment is appropriate. Plaintiff also presented a genuine issue of fact regarding the Bad Faith and Negligent Claims Handing claim. Lastly, the USDC found fees do not apply.

Bad faith is a tort that requires a finding of unreasonable conduct by the insurer. The facts to prove that tort was not proved but the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the Bad Faith and Negligent Claims Handing claim. Whether they proved the torts at trial will be established by a jury.