Vorhees v. Esurance Ins. Servs.

1

JUSTIN R. VORHEES, et al., and KASSI L. BLANCHARD, spouses, Plaintiff(s), v. ESURANCE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., an ALLSTATE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. company, foreign corporations doing business in the State of Washington, Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-00420- RAJ

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

August 29, 2024

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES JOINT MOTION TO ENTER FINDINGS AND TO CERTIFY APPEAL UNDER CR54(B)

The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

Currently before the Court is the parties Joint Motion to Enter Findings and to Certify Appeal Under CR 54(b). Having reviewed the motion, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, and no opposition to the motion being filed the Court hereby rules as follows:

In support of its Minute Order, Dkt. 56, the Court FINDS:

1. With respect to the Orders: (1) Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant Esurance Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. 54: the dispositive orders would be final in the sense that each such order is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action, were it not for the presence of the 1^st party claim for damages under the Plaintiffs' UIM policy; and there is no just reason for delay to appeal the dispositive orders.

2. The reasons for Rule 54(b) certification via this order include:

a Plaintiffs seek to appeal the dispositive orders. Bases for the appeal that Plaintiffs intend to assert include but are not limited to: (1) That this Court engaged in impermissible fact-finding in dismissing Plaintiffs' insurance bad faith, IFCA, and WCPA claims, (2) this Court failed to appropriately apply the standard in Beasley v. GEICO Gen Ins. Co., 23 Wn.App. 641, 517 P.3d 500 (2022) review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1028 (2023); and (3) this Court's ruling as to the admissibility and relevance Plaintiffs' insurance bad faith expert contradicts the court's ruling that no reasonable juror could find for Plaintiffs.

b. No party opposes entry of this order.

c. No party will be prejudiced by appeal of the dispositive order prior to trial of the remaining claims in this action.

d. The common facts underlying Plaintiffs' claim for damages under the Esurance Uninsured Motorist Policy are central to the claims dismissed in the dispositive order Plaintiff's claims for insurance bad faith, violation of the ...