INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., March 10 – Members of the insurance industry have filed an amici curiae brief in a multi-state class action appeal which could have state vs. federal ramifications, according to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC). The case, Laughlin v. Allstate Insurance Company, is currently before the Washington State Supreme Court.

In the case, Laughlin, a Washington resident, filed suit in Washington against Allstate pertaining to a contract interpretation dispute relating toan underinsured motorists coverage provision.Plaintiffs from 19 different states petitioned the trial court to certify amulti-state class action. The insurance carrier opposed the class certification.

NAMIC said that Allstateargued that the multi-state class action did not meet the tests for certification. Specifically, the differences in insurance laws and contract laws in the various 19 states prevent the class from being certifiable pursuant to the statutory requirements of commonality and predominance between and among the insurance claims.

The trial court rejected the insurance carriers arguments and certified the class. The insurer then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted review of only the predominance issue and affirmed the trial courts ruling. The insurance carrierthen filed a petition for discretionary review with theState Supreme Court.

NAMIC is participating in this appeal becauseone state court should not have the authority to interfere with another states regulation of its insurance industry or the adjudication of state specific insurance claims, stated NAMIC state affairs manager Christian John Rataj.

NAMIC said that it, and the otheramici curiae parties, argued that the trial courts granting of a multi-state class action:

Raises significantconstitutional due process of law,and commerce clause questions;

Isinconsistent with the constitutional principle of Comity (the doctrine that one state should respect the legal decisions and executive actions of another state);

Would, in effect, act as an extra-territorial regulation of the department of insurance in the 19class action states involved in the case.