Life Insurance Don’t Forget the Filed-Rate Doctrine Day v. GEICO Casualty Co., No. 24-2201 (9th Cir. July 9, 2025). In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the stillness on once-congested roads led to a change in loss exposures for auto insurers. Days before a California Department of Insurance (CDI) mandate for all auto insurers, GEICO announced its Giveback program to partially refund premiums to insureds. In accordance with requirements in later CDI bulletins, GEICO submitted data to show that its premium refunds adequately accounted for the lower risk of loss. By Zoom meeting and email, the CDI confirmed that GEICO’s methodology and calculations were sufficient. The plaintiff filed a putative class action claiming that GEICO’s premiums during the pandemic were unfair under California’s Unfair Competition Law. California’s Insurance Code provides a safe harbor against liability for insurance rates previously approved by the CDI, but the district court found that the safe harbor did not apply because the plaintiff was challenging the application of approved rates, not the ratemaking process. The Ninth Circuit reversed and granted summary judgment to GEICO, holding that the safe harbor barred the plaintiff’s challenge to the premium rates that were applied to her policy and had been approved by the CDI. The filed-rate doctrine varies by state, and in some states its scope is unsettled. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling strengthens the doctrine in California. It’s also a reminder to consider ways that it could be invoked, potentially early in a case. Many courts find that the filed-rate doctrine is an affirmative defense or merits issue, making it difficult to raise in a motion to dismiss. But other courts have viewed it as a standing or jurisdictional issue because it results in no legally cognizable injury that the court could redress. Driving Toward Class Certification Denials in Auto Insurance Total-Loss Suits Drummond v. Progressive, No. 24-1267 (3rd Cir. July 7, 2025). Freeman v. Progressive, No. 24-1684 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). Schroeder v. Progressive, No. 24-1559 (7th Cir. July 24, 2025). Ambrosio v. Progressive, No. 24-2708 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025). A quartet of circuit courts has steered the law toward consensus in denying class certification for claims that auto insurers incorrectly calculated the actual cash value of vehicles using projected sold adjustments, or PSAs. PSAs take the advertised price of unsold comparable vehicles and adjust that list price downward to reflect consumer behavior in negotiating the price. The Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits agreed that these lawsuits would require individually evaluating the pre-accident value of each car to determine whether it was greater than the insurer’s calculation, resulting in the predominance of individualized inquiries. The fact that the use of PSAs allegedly always resulted in a downward adjustment from an unchallenged calculation was insufficient to establish classwide proof of injury. And classwide proof of injury, unlike post-liability damages, must be established at the class certification stage. n Judicial notice rules could also provide some leeway for presenting the issue at the pleading stage. The doctrine may also provide a reason not to certify a nationwide class action involving rates that were submitted to state regulators because the variance in the doctrine creates issues that must be individually assessed for each state. n Cost of Insurance Goes to the Dogs Sage v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, No. 2:25-cv-01644 (W.D. Wash.). Tenney v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, No. 8:25-cv-02186 (C.D. Cal.). A pair of putative class actions are pending in Washington and California, alleging that insurers that issued pet insurance breached their policies when they increased premiums. The policies provided that “[m] onthly premiums may change for all policyholders to reflect changes in the costs of veterinary medicine.” Reminiscent of cases challenging increases to the cost of insurance in human life insurance policies, the plaintiffs assert that this provision limits the insurers to increasing premiums based only on increased costs in veterinary care, considering no other unauthorized factors. These two cases are in their early stages, while other similar cases have settled. We are watching this litigation trend for holdings that may apply beyond the doghouse. n Eleventh Circuit Predicts Florida Would Apply the NoticePrejudice Rule to Claim Notice Provisions L. Squared Industries v. Nautilus Insurance Co., No. 23-13031 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2025). An insured failed to notify its insurer within seven days of identifying a pollution condition, as required by its claims-made policy. The Eleventh Circuit was tasked with determining how Florida courts would rule when an insured gave notice of its potential claim within the claims-made policy period but not within the time limit of a notice provision. Because Florida courts had not addressed that question, the Eleventh Circuit applied the majority view, which is that there is a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the insurer barring coverage. The insured had not submitted evidence to rebut that presumption, so the court upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer. n Insurance Rate Reflections 5 4 Coverage Corner
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI4MjIwNg==