Call Us For A Free Consultation or a Free Online Consultation

Class Action

A class action is a form of lawsuit where a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court. Despite the massive propaganda efforts that corporations have launched against class action litigation, these are the type of lawsuits that make lasting changes for the benefit of consumers.

NOTE: We have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Washington State Apple Health insureds against Amerigroup Washington, Inc. We have also filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Anthem, Inc. for the 2014 data breach. 

If you are a victim of a data breach as an Amerigroup Washington insured, please email or call Catherine Fleming at 206.448.1777. 

Please contact Catherine, if you were were insured with Anthem and have experienced issues as a result of the Anthem data breach.

United States Federal Class Action Lawsuits

In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (d).

Under § 1332 (d) (2) the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and either 1. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; 2. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or 3. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.  Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. This may be difficult if the civil law in the various states have significant differences.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court by giving federal courts original jurisdiction for all class actions with damages exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. Typically these cases result from an action on the part of a business or policy that applied to all proposed class members in a uniform manner. After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In some cases class certification may require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Due process requires in most cases that notice describing the class action be sent, published, or broadcast to class members. As part of this notice procedure, there may have to be several notices, first a notice giving class members the opportunity to opt out of the class, i.e. if individuals wish to proceed with their own litigation they are entitled to do so, only to the extent that they give timely notice to the class counsel or the court that they are opting out. Second, if there is a settlement proposal, the court will usually direct the class counsel to send a settlement notice to all the members of the certified class, informing them of the details of the proposed settlement.

In civil procedure law, the class action must have certain definite characteristics:

  1. The class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical,
  2. There must be legal or factual claims in common,
  3. The claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and
  4. The representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class.

The party seeking certification must also show that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants, and that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand.

Stritmatter Kessler has had a history of involvement in many class actions over the years.  The largest to date was a nine year battle involving Behr Clear Sealants.  See, Smith v. Behr Process Corporation, 113 Wn. App. 306, 318, 54 P.3d 665 (2002).  The case was first filed in Grays Harbor County for a class of all users in Western Washington.  A later class covered users throughout the United States.  The Western Washington case was successfully tried to verdict and won on appeal.  The nationwide class case was settled for a sum totaling $132.5 million.  The Western Washington case was settled for $67.5 million.

Representative Cases

Mertlich et al v. Anthem, Inc. class action

Ms. Fleming represents Ms. Mertlich and similarly situated class members whose Personal Information was compromised as the result of Anthem’s negligence. Anthem’s latest data breach was announced in early 2015, although it had earlier data breaches and audits revealing security issues. This class action lawsuit is currently in litigation in the Northern District of California.

Kaufman et al v. Amerigroup Washington (aka “Apple Health”) class action

In 2015, we filed a class action lawsuit against Amerigroup WA (aka “Apple Health”) in the King County Superior Court on behalf of Washington State citizens, who were insured with Apple Health (Amerigroup Washington) and had their Personal Information compromised due to data breach(es). The class action is currently in litigation. If you have questions or want to participate in this class action, please contact Catherine Fleming at or 206.448.1777.

Baker v. U.S. Legal
Attorneys at our firm have filed a class action complaint against US Legal for unfair and deceptive practices that puts plaintiffs at a financial disadvantage--specifically, charging plaintiffs at a higher rate than insurance companies for court reporting services. If you/your attorney recently received an invoice from US Legal for court reporting services, please contact Travis Jameson at our office via
Sitton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

(2003) Insureds of State Farm brought a class action against State Farm to recover for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, bad faith, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment by denying or limiting claims for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits after medical utilization review. The trial court certified the class and bifurcated trial. Discretionary review was granted by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) the class action was properly certified on the ground that common questions of fact or law predominated, and a class action was superior; (2) the plan for bifurcated trial violated due process by allowing the jury to make a damages award without requiring individual claimants to establish causation and damages or providing the insurer the opportunity to show a reasonable justification for denying individual claims; and (3) bifurcated trial would not violate insurer’s right to a jury trial.

Holden v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

(January 2012) A consumer class action settled on behalf of over 7,000 insureds who were improperly denied applicable Washington State sales tax on personal property losses.  The case settled following the Washington State Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision upholding the trial court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff/insured.  The settlement called for Farmers to pay sales tax plus 12% interest per annum to every insured who submits a valid claim form, plus $500,000 in attorney fees and costs.

Benton v. Kaiser Permanente
A $4 million settlement of a class action for the reckless violation of patient rights in testing for HIV without patient knowledge or consent. Between April 11, 2013 and May 6, 2013, Kaiser Permanent illegally tested thousands without their knowledge and consent.
Stipic, et al. v. Behr Process Corporation

(October 2002).  A class action settlement for the benefit of a nationwide class of consumers for $132,500,000.

Smith, et al. v. Behr Process Corporation

(2002) A class action verdict for the benefit of thousands of Western Washington consumers in Grays Harbor County Superior Court in 2000.  Breach of warranty and Consumer Protection Act violation case for defects in clear coatings for exterior wood surfaces.  The products promoted rather than prevented growth of mildew.  The nine class representatives received verdicts from a low of $24,000 to a high of $97,000. Applied to the entire class, the case resulted in a settlement of $67,500,000.

Cutshaw v. Weyerhaeuser

(1993) $7,400,000 verdict for 241 plaintiffs in toxic tort claim for neighborhood exposure to sulfur gases from pulp mill wastewater treatment ponds.

Hesse, et al. v. Sprint PCS
(2014) SKW obtained a $20 million settlement in a class action lawsuit against Sprint PCS.