Plaintiff Mary Coppinger was injured in 2010 when her vehicle was rear-ended by Daniel Klein. Both Ms. Coppinger and Mr. Klein were insured through Defendant Allstate. Mr. Klein had a $50,000 policy limit; Ms. Coppinger had $100,000 in uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Anticipating that her damages would exceed $50,000, Ms. Coppinger demanded full payment of Mr. Klein’s policy limit in 2012 and filed a UIM claim with Allstate in January 2013. Allstate concluded in January 2013 that Ms. Coppinger’s damages would not exceed $50,000 and denied her UIM claim. Ms. Coppinger made further demands for UIM coverage in May, June, and August 2013, all of which Allstate denied. Ms. Coppinger continued to pursue the matter through 2017. Allstate reconsidered its valuation of the UIM claim in 2016 and 2017 based on information Ms. Coppinger provided, but Allstate never changed its determination that her UIM claim had no value.

Following a September 2017 denial of UIM coverage, Ms. Coppinger filed suit against Allstate asserting common law bad faith and several other claims. Allstate moved to dismiss several of Ms. Coppinger’s claims, including her bad faith claim. Allstate argued that Ms. Coppinger’s bad faith claim was untimely because Allstate issued its denial in early 2013, more than four years before Ms. Coppinger filed her complaint.

The court agreed and dismissed Ms. Coppinger’s bad faith claim with prejudice. “The statute of limitations for a common law bad faith claim, like most claims, begins to run when the party first has the right to apply to a court for relief. . . . In the case of an insurance bad faith claim, this is when the claim is initially denied” (quotations and citations omitted). There was no dispute that Allstate first denied coverage in early 2013, more than four years before Ms. Coppinger filed suit. Instead, Ms. Coppinger argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because “Allstate requested additional information and records, and led the Plaintiff to believe it was re-evaluating the claim and performing a records review from mid-2016 until September 2017.” The court disagreed, noting that equitable tolling applies only in rare cases and “when (a) the defendant has exhibited bad faith, deception, or false assurances; (b) the plaintiff has acted diligently; and (c) justice so requires” (quotations omitted). The court determined that the complaint did not contain sufficient facts to support any of the elements required for equitable tolling. Although Ms. Coppinger also suggested that Washington’s continuing tort violation should apply, the court declined to consider this issue because she did not meaningfully support her suggestion with facts or legal argument.

Coppinger v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. C17-1756-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2018)