In another case in the Western District of Washington, a different federal judge distinguished the Harvey v. Centene Management case we discussed here yesterday.
In Epstein v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 636 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (W.D. Wash. 2022), an insurance case, the claimant alleged "that Defendants have violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by forcing lower-ranking servicemembers to pay more for auto insurance than higher-ranking servicemembers. Defendants move to dismiss all of the claims and to strike the request for equitable relief." Epstein, 636 F. Supp. 3d at 1261.
The Court applied the FRD in Epstein and distinguished the Harvey decision. Here, in the eyes of the Court, the plaintiff's claims implicated the FRD. Epstein, 636 F. Supp. 3d at 1266. The Court was convinced that the FRD applied because it thought that the relevant administrative agency had approved the rates in question.
If it was ever a proven fact that the relevant authority approved the rates in question in the Epstein case, I have not been able to find it in the opinion. For all that appears, it was enough that the Judge thought that the relevant authority had previously approved the rates at issue in that case. Or perhaps, as happens so often in the case law, the Judge thought it was a fact merely because the insurance companies said so. Either way, insurance practitioners would do well to pay attention to how the Filed Rate Doctrine is decided in the case law.
Please read the disclaimer. The filed rate doctrine is discussed particularly in the context of insurance cases in 2 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH §§ 11:26-11:26.50 (3d Edition West Publishing Co., 2023 Supplements in process). This blog article ©2023 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments