The following cases illustrate some of the Perry Law P.C.’s Insurance Industry Group’s experience in handling Underwriting/Premium Calculations matters:


Case Summary

Williams, No. 1:09-cv-03568, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, removed from No. 2009-ch-16495, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division. Lead counsel. In this putative class action, the carrier was sued by an insured who alleged the carrier failed to provide mandated policy discounts. The case settled.

Case Result

Settlement


Case Summary

Ramona Woodson, Case No. 98-13063; 201st District Court of Travis County, Texas. Lead counsel and its Managing General. This case involved an alleged conspiracy of several insurers to discriminate in its rate setting by using zip codes. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification was denied after a three-day hearing.

Case Result

Class action denied


Case Summary

Hawa, Cause No. D-167,221, 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Lead counsel. Proposed class action alleging that the carrier improperly failed to return unearned premiums. The summary judgment in favor of the client was affirmed on appeal. See 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1179.

Case Result

Summary judgment


Case Summary

Lynn & Seth Young et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., et al., Civil Action No. 2003CV55, District Court of Boulder County, Colorado, Division 5. Lead counsel. Proposed class action filed by auto insureds against various auto insurance companies alleging claims stemming from insurers’ UM insurance coverage and premiums assessed for UM coverage. The case was severed into multiple cases against the various insurers, resulting in several state court appellate decisions as to those insurers.

Case Result

Settled individually


Case Summary

Mathew Buckmaster, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, Cause No. CV-03-222C, Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Lead counsel. Proposed class action by auto insureds against numerous auto insurance companies seeking a refund of UM premiums paid in policies that contained UM anti-stacking provisions. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Case Result

Dismissed


Case Summary

Weber, Cause No. CV-03-638, Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. Lead counsel. Plaintiff alleged the unconstitutionality of the carrier’s auto policy’s anti-stacking provision. Case dismissed.

Case Result

Dismissed