Gulamani v. Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE [6] ARIFF GULAMANI and SHAIROSE GULAMANI, husband and wife, [7] Plaintiffs, [8] C19-1475 TSZ v. [9] MINUTE ORDER UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME [10] INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant. [12] The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 13 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion, docket no. 28, for an extension of time to submit a [14] supplemental authority, namely Ochoa v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 172 Wn. App. 688 , 296 P.3d 906 (2012), is GRANTED. [15] (2) Plaintiffs’ motion, docket no. 22, to certify certain questions to the 16 Washington Supreme Court, pursuant to RCW 2.60.020, is DENIED. 17 (3) Plaintiffs’ motion, docket no. 32, for partial summary judgment regarding defendant’s affirmative defense and unpled counterclaim for recovery of funds tendered 18 unconditionally is RENOTED to March 13, 2020. 19 (4) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 11, is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part as follows. In light of plaintiffs’ concession that 20 defendant Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company (“Unitrin”) did not provide an umbrella policy to plaintiffs for the period during which the motor vehicle accident at 21 issue occurred, see Pla.’s Resp. at 2 (docket no. 17), plaintiffs’ claims premised on an umbrella policy are DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant’s motion for summary 22 judgment, docket no. 11, is otherwise DEFERRED and RENOTED to February 21, 2020. 1 (5) On or before February 14, 2020, plaintiffs shall file a supplemental response to Unitrin’s motion for summary judgment, not to exceed twelve (12) pages in 2 length, addressing the following issues: 3 (i) what evidence, if any, exists in the record that would lead a rational trier of fact to find plaintiffs’ damages relating to the collision at issue exceed the 4 $100,000 limit on Dmitri Bouianov’s automobile liability insurance policy; (ii) whether Unitrin’s unconditional tender of $25,000, in full payment [5] on the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) claim at issue, and plaintiffs’ apparent acceptance of such amount, render this case moot; [6] (iii) whether, and to what extent do, the proceeds of the settlement of [7] plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim reduce the UIM benefits at issue, and how much did plaintiffs receive; see Harford Cas. Inc. Co. v. Farrish-LeDuc, 882 A.2d 44 8 (Conn. 2005); and 9 (iv) whether plaintiffs’ recovery on their legal malpractice claim precludes their breach of contract, bad faith, and Consumer Protection Act claims 10 in this matter; see Matson v. Weidenkopf, 101 Wn. App. 472, 484 , 3 P.3d 805 (2000) (“The measure of damages for legal malpractice is the amount of loss 11 actually sustained as a proximate result of the attorney’s conduct.”); Bush v. O’Connor, 58 Wn. App. 138, 147 , 791 P.2d 915 (1990) (“the insurer stands in the 12 shoes of the underinsured motorist and provides its insureds with the coverage the underinsured motorist’s insurance would have provided”). [13] (6) Unitrin may file a supplemental reply in support of its motion for summary 14 judgment, not to exceed eight (8) pages in length, on or before the new noting date. 15 (7) The Clerk is DIRECTED to seal Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Janine Tipsord, docket no. 15-6, which contains the full birthdate of plaintiff Ariff Gulamani. 16 See Local Civil Rule 5.2(a)(1). (8) The Clerk is further DIRECTED to send a copy of this Minute Order to all [17] counsel of record. [18] Dated this 30th day of January, 2020. [19] William M. McCool 20 Clerk 21 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk