Allen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:15-cv-0019-HRH,3:15-cv-0019-HRH |
| Parties | ABRAHAM ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and MICHAEL YOUNT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiff's bad faith claims.1 In the alternative, defendants move for partial summary judgment on some of plaintiff's damages claims.2 Defendants' motion is opposed.3 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.
Plaintiff is Abraham Allen. Defendants are State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Michael Yount.
On October 17, 2012, plaintiff was working for Alaska's Best Water and was driving a vehicle owned and insured by Alaska's Best Water. Plaintiff was rear-ended at the intersection of Abbott Road and 88th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska. The insurance policy covering the vehicle was issued by State Farm and provided up to $100,000 in Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage.
The driver of the vehicle that rear-ended plaintiff was Kris Brandon, who was also insured by State Farm. Brandon was determined to be at fault for the accident. Plaintiff settled his liability claim against Brandon for $100,000, plus interest and attorney's fees. Plaintiff also received $143,817.21 in Worker's Comp benefits for his injuries arising out of the accident.
State Farm was first advised that plaintiff had a potential UIM claim when his attorney called State Farm on October 22, 2013. On October 24, 2013, State Farm acknowledged that it had received plaintiff's claim,4 and on October 25, 2013, State Farm opened a UIM claim in its system.5
On December 26, 2013, plaintiff requested State Farm's consent to settle his liability claim against Brandon for liability policy limits of $100,000.6 After performing an asset check on Brandon, on January 6, 2014, State Farm gave its consent for plaintiff to settle with Brandon for available liability limits.7
On March 6, 2014, plaintiff advised State Farm that he was still working on his demand package and that he would send it to State Farm by the end of the month.8 The settlement demand package was provided on April 21, 2014.9 Plaintiff offered to settle his UIM claim for policy limits of $100,000.10
State Farm then began to evaluate plaintiff's UIM claim. Yount was the adjuster assigned to plaintiff's UIM claim. On April 29, 2014, Yount started attempting to find photos of the vehicles involved in the accident.11 Although it did not have any photos of plaintiff's vehicle, Alaska's Best Water told Yount that there was no physical damage to the vehicle and that the only damage was to the fuel pump assembly.12 Brandon told Yount thatthe damage to her car that showed up in photos was from driving over snow berms and a prior accident.13
On April 30, 2014, Yount requested authorization to deny plaintiff's UIM claim for a number of reasons. First, Yount noted that there was no damage to plaintiff's vehicle.14 Second, Yount noted that all of the damage to Brandon's vehicle was from another accident or other incidents.15 Third, Yount noted that plaintiff claimed that he was rear-ended at 35 miles per hour, but that damages to the vehicles did not support a 35 mph impact.16 Yount also noted that although plaintiff claimed he had injured his head, damages to the vehicles did not support sufficient force for him to have struck his head on the interior pillar and there was no evidence that plaintiff remained unconscious for any length of time after the accident.17 Fourth, Yount noted that plaintiff's claim that the steel rear bumper of his vehicle was pushed/curled up into the vehicle was not supported by what Yount had been told by Alaska's Best Water.18 Fifth, Yount noted that the main injury claimed was midline disc protrusion to C5-6 but that he "unable to find a mechanism from this loss to cause thisinjury."19 Sixth, Yount noted that the IME doctor who examined plaintiff in connection with his Worker's Comp claim found that the accident was one of the causes of plaintiff's neck injury but that the IME doctor was "under [the] impression" that the accident occurred at 35 mph and that plaintiff lost consciousness,20 facts which Yount believed were not supported.21
On May 12, 2014, Jeff Isaacson, Yount's Team Manager, noted that "there appears to be some causation questions for this loss."22 Isaacson noted that the "IME and PA [plaintiff's attorney] indicate that this was a significant impact of over 35 MPH, however V1 photos indicate no damage, and the only damage claimed by the insured ... was for a fuel pump."23 Yount was instructed to 24
On May 14, 2014, Yount informed plaintiff's attorney that he "currently d[id] not see any mechanism for significant inj." and requested that plaintiff provide any photos he might have of the vehicle he was driving, a copy of his Worker's Comp file, and the past two years of his medical records.25
On May 23, 2014, plaintiff's attorney "emailed copies of photographs of damage to the van plaintiff was allegedly driving at the time of the accident."26 Again, on May 29, 2014, plaintiff's attorney emailed Yount photographs of the van that plaintiff was allegedly driving at the time of the accident.27 Yount avers that 28
On June 5, 2014, plaintiff's attorney advised Yount that plaintiff said 29
Sometime between June 5, 2014 and June 10, 2014, plaintiff's attorney advised State Farm that plaintiff had had a life insurance physical in 2012.30 On June 10, 2014, Yount noted that 31
On July 10, 2014, Yount noted that plaintiff "denies any medical history over the last 14 years except for physical in 2012 (this was found to be false as records indicate inj from a fall 5 days prior to physical in 2012)."32 Plaintiff's medical records showed that he had been seen at Mat-Su Regional 5 days before the September 2012 physical.33
On August 18, 2014, Yount discussed plaintiff's claim with Isaacson and Isaacson noted that "[g]iven causation questions, and uncertainty of prior medical treatment, with a questionable relatedness of surgery to the accident, we will need an IME."34 Yount then discussed plaintiff's claim with a defense attorney (Stacy Walker) who recommended having a biomechanical engineer "determine if any causation for inj and if none then possiblyrecords review for doctor to look over the Biomechanical Expert review and formulate a medical opinion."35 Yount discussed the defense attorney's recommendations with Isaacson who advised him to write a letter retaining the defense attorney and then have her retain the biomechanical engineer.36
On September 22, 2014, Walker advised Yount that there had been some delay in getting a report from the biomechanical engineer.38 She also advised that "proceeding w/ an Examination Under Oath of [plaintiff] would be beneficial to answer some questions and confirm ... if he did/didn't have any pre-existing neck problems before this MVA, as well assome mechanical questions about the MVA and how he was positioned upon impact."39 Yount's request to do an Examination under Oath was approved on September 22, 201440 and scheduled for October 8, 2014.41 Yount avers that he requested that "Walker confirm causation, the mechanics of the loss, plaintiff's claim of loss of consciousness, plaintiff's past medical history and providers."42
At the Examination Under Oath, plaintiff showed State Farm four pictures that plaintiff had of the vehicle that he had been driving on the day of the accident.43 These pictures "confirmed there is no separate head rest ... and there is a flat piece of metal (a driver wall) directly behind the seat."44
After the Examination Under Oath, State Farm determined that it needed to try to get measurements of plaintiff's vehicle in order to compare measurements of the seat height "w/ [plaintiff's] height regarding his claim that his head went backwards and hit the metal cage behind the driver[']s seat."45
On October 14, 2014, State Farm learned that Alaska's Best Water no longer owned the vehicle that plaintiff had been driving.46 State Farm then began attempting to locate the current owner of the vehicle.47
On October 28, 2014, plaintiff filed suit against defendants. Plaintiff asserted a UIM claim as well as bad faith claims against defendants. Although defendants were not served with plaintiff's complaint until January 2015, they were aware that plaintiff had filed suit prior to being served.48
On November 21, 2014, Yount noted that Walker had informed him that the "accident...
To continue reading
Request your trial