The NAM filed a brief on 5/11/01 seeking review of an improper class action certification order that allows 20,000 different plaintiffs to use Washington state law to circumvent other state insurance regulation and legal defenses. The Washington court denied the appeal in June.The NAM had asked the Washington Supreme Court to grant discretionary review over whether such class certification is appropriate in light of the important limitations on the use of class action suits. In this case the defendant and most of the plaintiffs lived outside Washington, most of the accidents occurred outside Washington, most of the claims were filed and processed outside Washington, and the claims could not be resolved without a variety of individualized factual and legal determinations.
The NAM argued, in an amicus brief filed 5/11/01, that cases like this should not be certified as class actions. The class action process is being abused by plaintiffs’ lawyers to generate common fund fee awards. Allowing a class action suit in this instance would let Washington’s law override the insurance regulation of many other states, possibly allowing recoveries for claims that are not covered elsewhere and removing defenses that might be available to the company in other states. This is unfair, expensive and is part of a trend that encourages extortionate settlements.