Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 BRIONNA SCHMIDT, 10 Plaintiff, No. 3:19-cv-05589-RBL 11 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, REGARDING ALLSTATE’S 13 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING Defendant. SETTLEMENT 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Schmidt’s Motion for Summary 17 Judgment Regarding Allstate’s Affirmative Defenses Alleging Settlement. Having reviewed 18 Schmidt’s motion, Allstate’s response and Schmidt’s reply, the Court makes the following 19 findings: 20 1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 21 2. Allstate has the burden of proof on its affirmative defenses. Duenez v. Dakota 22 23 Creek Indus. Inc., C16-1238-JCC, 2018 WL 488948, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 24 2018) (citing Jones v. Taber, 648 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 1981)). Thus, 25 Schmidt may obtain summary judgment on Allstate’s affirmative defenses by 26 showing that Allstate lacks evidence supporting Allstate’s affirmative defenses. 1 Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 2 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) and Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 3 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000)). Once Schmidt meets this burden, Allstate must 4 “‘come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 5 trial.’” Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 6 7 574, 587 (1986)). 8 3. Allstate’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses each require proof 9 Schmidt agreed to settle and release the claims alleged in this lawsuit by 10 accepting Allstate’s pre-litigation partial payment of Schmidt’s insurance policy 11 benefits. See Allstate’s Answer, Dkt. No. 12, pp. 3-5 (Allstate’s affirmative 12 defenses asserting “The parties agreed to settle and compromise the case…” and 13 “The Parties…negotiated and settled all claims…”). 14 15 4. Washington law determines whether Schmidt agreed to release her insurance bad 16 faith claims against Allstate. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Clark Cty., 10-CV-5625 RBL, 17 2012 WL 2068775, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2012) (citing Jeff D. v. Andrus, 18 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.1989)). Under Washington law, a settlement is a 19 contract requiring the parties objectively manifest their agreement. Id. (citations 20 omitted). 21 5. Schmidt meets her burden to show the absence of evidence supporting Allstate’s 22 23 third through sixth affirmative defenses. Schmidt proffers email correspondence 24 establishing Allstate agreed to pay part of Schmidt’s insurance benefits without 25 requesting Schmidt release claims against Allstate. See Declaration of McKean J. 26 Evans, Ex. A. Indeed, Allstate knew Schmidt intended to file this lawsuit but 1 nevertheless tendered payment without requesting a release. Id. Further, Schmidt 2 points out Allstate’s interrogatory answers and initial disclosures identify no 3 facts or documents supporting Schmidt’s agreement to release claims against 4 Allstate. See Dkt. No. 20-10 (Allstate’s discovery responses), p. 6 (response to 5 Interrogatory No. 3); Dkt. No. 18 (Allstate’s initial disclosures), p. 4. 6 7 6. Allstate fails to meet its burden to “come forward with specific facts showing 8 that there is a genuine issue for trial” regarding Schmidt’s agreement to release 9 claims against Allstate by accepting Allstate’s pre-litigation partial insurance 10 benefit payment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587. Allstate identifies 11 no objective manifestation of Schmidt’s intent to release claims against Allstate 12 by accepting insurance benefits. Absent such evidence, Allstate cannot prove 13 Schmidt settled or released the claims alleged in this lawsuit. Evanston Ins. Co., 14 15 WL 2068775, at *3 (citations omitted). 16 7. Accordingly, the Court enters summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Schmidt 17 and against defendant Allstate on Allstate’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth 18 affirmative defenses. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated this 13th day of April, 2020. 21 22 23 A 24 Ronald B. Leighton 25 United States District Judge 26 1 Presented by: 2 StandardSig 3 PLAINTIFF LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 4 5 By: s/ McKean J. Evans Isaac Ruiz, WSBA #35237 6 McKean Evans, WSBA #52750 Plaintiff Litigation Group, PLLC 7 95 S. Jackson St., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104 8 Telephone: (206) 203-9100 9 Fax: (206) 785-1702 Email: iruiz@plaintifflit.com 10 Email: mevans@plaintifflit.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brionna Schmidt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26