United States: Washington Weighs In On The Scope Of Insurance Regulators' Authority

Last Updated: March 2 2017
Article by Robert D. Helfand

In January, we reported that California's Supreme Court had embraced a problematic approach to the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act—one that allows the Commissioner of Insurance to create new statutory torts by regulating the manner in which specific business operations are conducted. This month, in Perez-Crisantos v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 92267-5 (Wash. Feb. 2, 2017), the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that a similar statute—Washington's Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA)— does not create a private right of action for violations of the Insurance Commissioner's regulations. The rationales for these two decisions are not mutually exclusive, because the Washington case turned on a statutory ambiguity that appears to be unique to IFCA. Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that Perez-Crisantos has resolved that ambiguity. Nevertheless, the new case provides some valuable material for the ongoing debate over the scope of insurance regulators' authority.

What's The Problem?

IFCA, RCW 48.30.010 et seq., was enacted by Washington's legislature in 2007 and then ratified by the state's voters. It broadly prohibits "unfair methods of competition or ... unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of" the business of insurance. The statute expressly defines and prohibits certain acts, and it also authorizes Washington's Insurance Commissioner to "define ... other acts and practices ... to be unfair and deceptive," by promulgating appropriate regulations. Sections 48.30.010(5) and (6) provide that the commissioner may issue a cease and desist order to any person found violating such regulations; that violation of the commissioner's order may result in a fine; and that the commissioner may also "take such other or additional action as is permitted under the insurance code for violation of a regulation."

Section 48.30.015 of IFCA gives certain aggrieved policyholders a right to sue their insurer for damages. Subsection (1) provides:

Any first party claimant to a policy of insurance who is unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits by an insurer may bring an action in the superior court of this state to recover the actual damages sustained ... .

Subsections (2) and (3) amplify this provision, authorizing the superior court to award treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs in certain cases. Unfortunately, they appear to apply to at least some cases that do not fall within the scope of Subsection (1):

(2) The superior court may, after finding that an insurer [1] has acted unreasonably in denying a claim for coverage or payment of benefits or [2] has violated a rule in subsection (5) of this section, increase the total award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages.

(3) The superior court shall, [1] after a finding of unreasonable denial of a claim for coverage or payment of benefits, or [2] after a finding of a violation of a rule in subsection (5) of this section, award reasonable attorneys' fees and actual and statutory litigation costs, including expert witness fees, to the first party claimant of an insurance contract who is the prevailing party in such an action.

Subsection (5) contains a list of regulations promulgated by the Insurance Commissioner, under the authority granted in Section 48.30.010. These regulations contain a number of prohibitions, some of which do not entail the unreasonable denial of a claim or payment. For example, an insurer could fail to disclose all "pertinent benefits" to a first-party claimant, in violation of WAC 284-30-350(1), without denying or underpaying the relevant claim. Subsection (5) also states that "[a] violation of any of [the enumerated regulations] is a violation for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section."

Thus, Subsections (2), (3) and (5) of Section 48.30.015 clearly authorize an award of treble damages and/or attorneys' fees, based solely on a violation of insurance regulations. But the statute does not clearly state that a policyholder who complains solely about a regulatory violation may bring a civil action in which such an award could be made. Nor is this omission obviously accidental. Subsection (1) expressly creates a private right of action only for the unreasonable denial of a claim. That is in distinct contrast with the two subsections that immediately follow; they refer both to violations of Subsection (1) and to the regulations listed in Subsection (5). Similarly, Subsection (5) expressly references Subsections (2) and (3), but not Subsection (1).

In short, the text of Section 48.30.015 provides evidence that the legislature (and the citizenry) did not intend to create a private right of action for violation of regulations alone—at least insofar as the regulations do not involve the unreasonable denial of a claim. Yet Subsection (5) provides that a violation of any of the regulations it names "is a violation for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)." Thus, for at least some regulatory infractions, the statute appears to create a remedy, without giving policyholders the means to obtain it.

Shoulder Trouble

The plaintiff in Perez-Crisantos was rear-ended while waiting to make a left turn in Spokane in November 2010. He subsequently incurred more than $50,000 in medical bills. His insurer paid $10,000 (along with $400 for lost wages), which was the limit of his Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. The driver who caused the accident had $25,000 in liability coverage, and the plaintiff settled with him for that amount. The plaintiff then sought the balance of his expenses under the underinsured motorist (UIM) portion of his own automobile policy.

His insurer acknowledged the validity of the claim, but disputed the amount. It took the position that the total value of the plaintiff's claim was no greater than the amount of his settlement with the negligent driver. According to the insurer, the $54,000 the policyholder had expended included treatment for a shoulder injury that was unrelated to the accident, as well as payments for chiropractic treatments the insurer considered "excessive." When the plaintiff asked the insurer to reconsider, it consulted an orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed its valuation.

The plaintiff then filed an action, asserting claims for bad faith, negligence, violation of IFCA and violation of several insurance regulations. The parties agreed to stay the claims for extra-contractual damages while they arbitrated the claim for UIM coverage. The arbitrator's valuation of that claim came in between those of the two parties, and the insurer paid the plaintiff an additional $24,000.

The stay of the lawsuit was then lifted, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging (among other things) that the insurer had violated WAC 284-30-330(7). That regulation makes it an unfair or deceptive act for an insurer to

[c]ompel[] a first party claimant to initiate or submit to litigation, arbitration, or appraisal to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such actions or proceedings.

This regulation is among those listed in IFCA's Section 48.30.015(5).

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to establish a basis for finding that the insurer had acted wrongfully. Specifically, it held that "[t]here has never been one scintilla of evidence" that the defendant had acted "unreasonably" or with an "ulterior motive." The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the Supreme Court granted direct review.

Washington Speaks

In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish "a genuine issue that [the insurer] acted unreasonably." Eight justices chose to address the additional question of whether IFCA created a private right of action for violation of an insurance regulation, even where the insurer has not unreasonably denied coverage. The ninth justice concurred in the result, but asserted that it was not necessary to reach the statutory question.

The issue the court addressed has previously been answered by federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court noted, however, those cases came out on both sides of the question. See Langley v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 89 F.Supp.3d 1083 (E.D. Wash. 2015) (recognizing implied cause of action for violation of regulations); Workland & Witherspoon, PLLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (E.D. Wash. 2015) (no private right of action absent unreasonable denial of a claim or benefits).

The Washington court found that Section 48.30.015 of IFCA does not permit policyholders to sue for regulatory violations. The decision rests primarily on the language of the statute—specifically, the difference between the language of Subsection (1) and that of Subsections (2) and (3):

IFCA explicitly creates a cause of action for first party insureds who were 'unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits.' IFCA does not state it creates a cause of action for first party insureds who were unreasonably denied a claim for coverage or payment of benefits or 'whose claims were processed in violation of the insurance regulations listed in (5),' which strongly suggests that IFCA was not meant to create a cause of action for regulatory violations.

The majority also acknowledged, however, that the statute is "ambiguous"—and, therefore, that the parties could cite extrinsic evidence about its underlying intent. In Langley, for example, the federal court was swayed by a Voters' Pamphlet issued in connection with the referendum on IFCA in 2007. One portion of the pamphlet conflated the language of Subsections (1) and (2), telling voters that the proposed statute

would authorize any first party claimant to bring a lawsuit ... for unreasonably denying a claim for coverage or payment of benefits, or violation of specified insurance commissioner unfair claims handling practices regulations  ... .

On the other hand, the same pamphlet contains the "official ballot title," which appears to reflect the distinction between the first two subsections:

This bill would [1] make it unlawful for insurers to unreasonably deny certain coverage claims, and [2] permit treble damages plus attorney fees for that and other violations.

This language was cited by a trade group, the American Insurance Association, in a brief filed as amicus curiae. The Supreme Court found that "[t]his language does not suggest an intent to create a private cause of action for regulatory violations.

A Broader Point

Finally—but importantly—the court found that its construction of IFCA "avoids absurd results." Citing several regulations that are listed in Section 48.30.015(5), but which do not involve the unreasonable denial of a claim, the court explained:

[I]f we found that violation of regulations listed in IFCA was independently actionable, then '[m]aking a claim payment to a first party claimant or beneficiary not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which the payment is made,' not responding until the 11th working day to 'pertinent communications from a claimant reasonably suggesting that a response is expected,' and notifying a claimant on the 16th day that a claim had been accepted would all be actionable[,] even if the insured was never unreasonably denied coverage or the payment of benefits.

The court did not elaborate on this argument, but it is possible to read in it a simple and important principle for interpreting insurance statutes. Typically, those statutes formulate explicit rules for insurers, while also authorizing an insurance regulator to adopt additional rules. The Washington court's argument suggests that the authority to issue regulations should not be interpreted as extending beyond the types of act that are addressed by the statute itself.

That was the principle underlying a recent Minnesota decision, which found that certain business practices of an insurer (in that case, diversity in management and procurement) were not "related to the duties and responsibilities entrusted to the commissioner," within the meaning of the authorizing statute. This principle was also affirmed in the California appellate court decision that the state's Supreme Court reversed last month. While overturning the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court purported to leave the principle intact.

In Perez-Crisantos, the same principle meant that "IFCA creates a cause of action for unreasonable denials of coverage," but it does not authorize the Insurance Commissioner to create causes of action that are unrelated to that specific, forbidden practice.

Are We Done?

The concurrence in Perez-Crisantos charged that "the majority's putative 'holding' adds to the confusion surrounding IFCA's purpose and scope." It pointed out that Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 48.30.015 expressly state that a court may award treble damages and attorneys' fees after finding either that the insurer has unreasonably denied a claim, or that it has violated one of the regulations listed in Subsection (5). The majority's opinion appears to want to preserve that authority, but it does not explain how a court might now be in a position to award treble damages without finding an unreasonable denial. If, that is, there is now no private right of action for a purely regulatory violation, what finding of liability could there be on which threefold damages could be paid?

Because the majority vacillated on this point, the concurrence concluded:

I believe today's opinion will engender only further debate and not the definitive interpretation the majority is apparently reaching for.


Washington is not always a friendly jurisdiction for insurers, and Perez-Crisantos is far from a stinging denunciation of regulatory overreach. Nevertheless, the case does uphold an important principle about the scope of agencies' authority to govern and penalize insurers' business practices. The provenance of the decision makes it all the more valuable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.