Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Wendy Nelson-Lloyd and Christopher Lloyd v. Auto Club Mapfre Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00188

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1 Feb 26, 2026

2

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

9 WENDY NELSON-LLOYD, and

10 CHRISTOPHER LLOYD, No. 2:25-CV-00188-SAB

11 Plaintiffs,

12 v. ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO

13 AUTO CLUB MAPFRE INSURANCE COMPEL, MOTION TO

14 COMPANY, EXTEND PRETRIAL

15 Defendant. DEADLINES, AND MOTION

16 FOR RECONSIDERATION

17

18 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 21, Defendant’s
19 Motion to Compel Appraisal, ECF No. 22, the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend
20 Pretrial Deadlines, ECF No. 31, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
21 No. 34. Plaintiffs are represented by Isaac Castaneda, Isaac Ruiz, and Kathryn M.
22 Knudsen. Defendant is represented by Dylan R. Knapp and Rory W. Leid, III. The
23 Motions were considered without oral argument.

24 Background

25 In 2024, a fire occurred at Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs had an insurance
26 policy through Defendant. After the fire, the parties disagreed over the extent of
27 the insurance policy coverage. Plaintiffs submitted an Insurance Fair Conduct Act
28 notice on February 25, 2025, and filed this lawsuit against Defendant on May 5,
1 2025, making claims for breach of contract, bad faith, negligent claims handling,
2 and Consumer Protection Act violations. The case was removed to this Court on
3 June 3, 2025.

4 1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR

5 RECONSIDERATION (ECF NOS. 21 AND 34)

6 Plaintiffs request the Court enter an Order compelling Defendant to provide
7 its employee personnel files, claims department financial metrics, and post-
8 litigation claims file materials. This Court previously denied Defendant’s Motion
9 for Protective Order regarding these materials, noting that the requests were
10 relevant and proportionate to the claims in this matter, ECF No. 25. As such,
11 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted.

12 Regarding the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Protective
13 Order, ECF No. 25, Plaintiff requests clarification on whether the Order applied to
14 the complete claims file, including all claims-handling materials created both
15 before and after the filing of this lawsuit through the present. Upon review of the
16 Order and relevant Motions, the Court notes the inclusion of the temporal
17 limitation, “Plaintiff is not seeking materials created” between February 25, 2025,
18 and May 5, 2025, was incorrect. Discovery of all claims handling activity,
19 regardless of timing, is permitted in insurance bad-faith litigation. Cedell v.
20 Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 176 Wn.2d 686, 696 (2013). As such, Defendant is
21 directed to provide the entire claims file as requested in Plaintiff’s Motion to
22 Compel, ECF No. 21.

23 2. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL APPRAISAL (ECF

24 NO. 22)

25 Defendant requests the Court enter an Order directing Plaintiffs to engage in
26 the appraisal process outlined in Plaintiff’s insurance policy. Defendant has
27 previously requested Plaintiffs engage in the appraisal process, which Plaintiffs
28 denied. In their response to the Motion, Plaintiffs assert appraisal is not appropriate
1 as they have already engaged in repairs to their home, and appraisal at this stage
2 runs the risk of delaying resolution, unjustifiable speculation, and prejudice to
3 Plaintiffs.

4 The enforcement of appraisal provisions in insurance contracts is warranted
5 when appraisal provides a pathway to a simple, inexpensive, and speedy

6 determination of the extent of the loss. Keesling v. W. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Wn. App.
7 841, 845 (1974). Although instigation of litigation does not bar a party from
8 requesting appraisal, the timing and justification of delay is relevant. Id. at 847.
9 Although appraisal could promote a faster resolution of the matter,

10 compelling appraisal at this time is inappropriate. Repairs are already underway at
11 Plaintiffs’ home, and the level of speculation necessary to complete the appraisal
12 process runs the risk of prejudicing Plaintiff and outweighs the potential benefits of
13 engaging in appraisal.

14 3. STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL

15 DEADLINES (ECF NO. 31)

16 Lastly, the parties stipulate and request the Court extend certain pretrial
17 discovery and motion deadlines, as additional time is needed to complete discovery
18 and prepare expert reports. The Court finds good cause to grant the Motion.
19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 21, and Motion for

21 Reconsideration, ECF No. 34, are GRANTED.

22 a. Within fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order,

23 Defendant shall serve upon Plaintiffs any and all documents responsive to
24 Plaintiffs’ requests for employee personnel files, claims department financial
25 metrics, and the entirety of Plaintiffs’ claim file.

26 2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Appraisal, ECF No. 22, is DENIED.

27 3. The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines, ECF No.
28 31, is GRANTED.

1 a. The deadline for Initial Expert Disclosures set for February 24,
2026, is RESET for March 24, 2026.
3 b. The deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosures set for March 26,
2026, is RESET for April 23, 2026.
5 C. The deadline to file Daubert Motions set for April 3, 2026, is
RESET for May 1, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to
8|| file this Order, provide copies to counsel, and set case management deadlines
9)| accordingly.
10 DATED this 26th day of February 2026.
11

14 Stan Bastian
15 Chief United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL, MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL