A recent decision by a Washington federal district court caught my eye because it involved a circumstance I often see—a new development in the law results in a class action lawsuit being filed before the defendant has an opportunity to change its practices in response to the change (or clarification) in the law. This decision

There have been a substantial number of putative class actions filed recently against insurers involving the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA). These cases are typically filed by assignees of Medicare advantage organizations that have paid for medical services arising from auto accidents. The claim is that under the MSPA, the PIP/MedPay coverage under auto policies

Insurers or their vendors generally use software to perform valuations of vehicles for total losses on auto insurance claims. This software will typically use databases of recent sales or prices offered for comparable vehicles in the area to estimate a vehicle’s value, and enable adjustments to be made for equipment, mileage, condition and other factors.

The Eighth Circuit recently addressed class certification in an insurance class action involving medpay and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage.  The case involved the use of third-party bill reviewers and the application of a guideline comparing charges for medical services to the 80th percentile of such charges in the geographic area.  The court applied the

Auto insurance policies typically provide for insureds to be reimbursed for expenses they incur in assisting in the defense of a lawsuit against the insured that is being defended by the insurer.  Some putative class actions have been brought on the theory that insurers fail to proactively determine whether these expenses are incurred and pay