Edd King v. National General Insurance Company

Background

On May 5, 2025, the court certified a class brought by Diedre King and Edd King against National General Insurance Company, Integon National Insurance Company, Integon Preferred Insurance Company, and MIC General Insurance Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated section 1861.16(b) of the California Insurance Code by failing to offer eligible customers the lowest-rate Good Driver Discount insurance policy. They asserted a claim under the unlawful-practices section of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The defendants sought permission to ask the court to reconsider the class-certification order. The court granted permission on two issues: Article III standing and whether common issues predominated over individual ones. The court treated the defendants’ filing as their motion for reconsideration.

Legal standard

Under the court’s local rules, reconsideration of an earlier nonfinal order requires reasonable diligence and a material difference in facts or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a clear failure to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments. A party may not use reconsideration simply to repeat arguments already made. The decision whether to reconsider an order is within the district court’s discretion.

Discussion

The defendants argued that the court had failed to consider their position that individual questions predominated because customers consider factors besides price when choosing insurance. In their view, determining whether each class member would have accepted a lower-rate policy would require an individualized inquiry. They also argued that the plaintiffs had not provided common evidence showing causation and harm for every class member.

The court acknowledged that its class-certification order had not addressed Article III standing in the context of predominance. Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy the injury. The court therefore considered the defendants’ argument on the merits of reconsideration.

The court concluded that the defendants’ alleged failure to offer the lowest-rate policy could itself be a concrete injury. It reasoned that the alleged harm was closely related to harms recognized in other unfair-competition cases, including selling a product in an unlawful form and failing to disclose material information to consumers. The court stated that class members were alleged to have bought insurance policies sold unlawfully because the defendants did not offer a policy within the relevant group with the lowest rate for the coverage.

The court further held that, for standing purposes, the plaintiffs needed to provide common evidence that class members bought policies from the defendants and that the defendants unlawfully failed to disclose lower-price policy options. The court found that the plaintiffs had done so. It stated that the alleged failure denied class members the option of purchasing a lower-priced policy, regardless of whether each person ultimately would have chosen that policy.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ response raised arguments and evidence concerning their damages model that had not supported the renewed class-certification motion. The court expressed skepticism about considering that material, but its decision did not depend on accepting those arguments.

Disposition

The court found that the defendants’ arguments about Article III standing and predominance did not change the result of the class-certification order. Judge Donna M. Ryu denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. This opinion did not decide the ultimate liability question under the California Insurance Code.