 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kadziute v. Allstate Insurance Company12/8/2003
Dzigita Kadziute and Marie Redling (Redling or Allstate's insured) were involved in an accident. Kadziute sued Redling's insurance company, Allstate. The trial court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action, including claims for punitive damages, negligent claims handling, defamation, outrage, Consumer Protection Act (CPA) violations, and discrimination pursuant to the Washington law against discrimination (WLAD). Kadziute appeals the trial court's decision on the CPA and WLAD claims. We affirm because Kadziute fails to present a prima facie case for discrimination and fails to counter Allstate's nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
I.
Dzigita Kadziute and Marie Redling were involved in an automobile accident. The police investigated the collision and filed a report listing John Angell as the owner of the car driven by Kadziute. Redling was issued a traffic citation. Redling denied that the accident occurred as the police report stated and denied any legal responsibility.
Angell's insurance company was Progressive Specialty Insurance. Redling's insurance company was Allstate Insurance Company. Progressive determined through its investigation that Redling was responsible for the accident and sent two letters to Allstate stating those results.
During its investigation, Allstate noted that Angell had a prior claim that had been assigned to the Allstate Special Investigation Unit (SIU). After noting Angell's prior claim, Allstate transferred Kadziute's file to the same claim examiner in SIU, Scott Wagner. Wagner wrote a letter to Redling explaining that Allstate was investigating the accident. According to Wagner, Redling used the letter in her traffic citation hearing. In the letter, Wagner noted that parties other than Redling were being investigated for staging accidents.
Kadziute hired former Allstate adjuster Christy Klein to review the facts of the case. Klein opined in a declaration that Redling was liable for the accident. She further stated that she found no support for Allstate's referral of the claim to SIU. Klein also stated that 'at Allstate, there was an emphasis placed on referring claims made by individuals of Russian or Eastern European origin (as well as certain other ethnic groups) to SIU for further investigation.'
Allstate examined Kadziute under oath and asked a number of questions relating to Kadziute's birthplace, length of time in country, and the country of origin of witnesses to the accident.
Kadziute filed a personal injury complaint against Redling and later moved to join Allstate. The trial court granted Kadziute's motion, but later granted a motion to separate the personal injury complaint against Redling from the complaints against Allstate. The trial court then granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Kadziute's claims for punitive damages, negligent claims handling, defamation, outrage, CPA violations, and discrimination pursuant to the WLAD.
II.
When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, this court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. A summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends, in whole or in part. The court must consider the facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. But the nonmoving party must s
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|