Gunn v. Continental Casualty Co.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff’s class action alleging that defendant-insurance company, which issued group long-term insurance policy to plaintiff’s employer, breached its contract, committed torts and violated consumer protection laws by raising his premiums dramatically. While Dist. Ct. based its dismissal upon defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff could not prevail because Washington State Insurance Commissioner had approved instant premium, remand was required, where: (1) defendant failed to identify that instant rate-filed affirmative defense came from either state or federal law; and (2) Dist. Ct. failed to resolve instant choice-of-law issue, where record contained at least two potential (either Washington D.C. or State of Washington) laws that could apply to plaintiff’s claim. As such, there needs to be finding as to which forum’s law applies to plaintiff’s case before there could be any valid dismissal. Ct. further noted that there was presumptive rule in group insurance settings that would apply law of employer’s principal place of business (Washington D.C.) as opposed to plaintiff’s residence in State of Washington, and that there was no guarantee that court in Washington D.C. would defer to findings of Washington State Insurance Commissioner. Also, remand was required, since it was unclear as to whether filed-rate affirmative defense as recognized by State of Washington would apply to instant factual setting.