Senior Partner
Protection of Washington Injury Victims
Our client Lydia was walking her newborn son across the street in a crosswalk when a careless, uninsured driver ran her down. Thankfully the baby was spared. But Lydia sustained pelvic fractures, long term disability from work, and disrupted the bonding experience with her second child.
Lydia had previously made the wise decision to purchase underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with her auto insurance. UIM compensates for things like lost wages, out of pocket bills, and disability if you are injured by an underinsured driver.
Because her injuries were so severe, Lydia’s auto insurer almost immediately offered the full policy amount. But then Regence, her healthcare coverage administrator, and its collection company MultiPlan, stepped in. They demanded reimbursement for Lydia’s hospital bills from Lydia’s UIM policy.
Washington law protects the rights of injured people to fully recover first—before health insurance companies get reimbursed, where they are expected to pay medical bills anyway. This is called the “made whole rule.” Health plans under federal law known as “ERISA” can recover every dime they paid before the injured victim recovers anything.
MultiPlan told Lydia that federal law (ERISA) applied and demanded half of her UIM benefits. But because Lydia was a government employee, there was no way she could have an ERISA plan.
MultiPlan attempted to settle a Consumer Protection Act claim with Lydia for $10,000 but insisted that it remain confidential. Then MultiPlan made the same misrepresentation to our client Blair, who had suffered a brain injury when the car she rode in collided with a bus.
Lydia and Blair decided enough was enough. They brought a class action lawsuit against MultiPlan and Regence for misrepresenting government employee health plans and the rights of plan members.
Class Action of Injured Government Employees
Last year Stritmatter Law obtained class certification on a Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim against MultiPlan and Regence. The class included 160 government employees (police, emergency personnel, hospital workers, teachers, bus drivers) who had been injured by someone else’s negligence. Regence and MultiPlan then demanded reimbursement for medical benefits paid for those injuries by misrepresenting injury victims’ rights under their health plans.
MultiPlan and Regence denied legal responsibility, claiming the misrepresentation to 160 government employees was mere “error” and not “unfair or deceptive” conduct under the CPA.
We took numerous depositions of corporate employees who admitted the falsehoods were unfair and deceptive. For example:
Q. …an ERISA plan means that the made whole rule will not apply unless the plan language for some reason says it does; correct?
A. Generally.
Q. ……………… an ERISA plan has the right of first recovery on settlement funds; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. … in an ERISA plan setting, the common fund doctrine will not apply unless the plan actually says it does; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And ERISA is the setting where you and your team may leverage future benefits being withheld; is that right?
A. I — yes.
Q. If all that is true, isn’t it unfair to tell tort victims that they have an ERISA plan when they don’t?
A. Yes.
Q. And it’s also deceptive, isn’t it?
A. It’s not necessarily intentional, which is why I don’t like the word “deceptive.” It’s wrong.
Q. It has the ability to deceive people as to their rights. Is that fair?
A. Yes.
Violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act
On February 2, 2026, Judge Kent Liu of King County Superior Court ruled that Multiplan’s above conduct violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act as a matter of law. He also ruled that the defendants’ conduct injured the class representatives and entered an injunction prohibiting the defendants from further misrepresenting the health plans: “While the named Plaintiffs face no future risk, other government employees do, and government employees are the largest employee group in Washington.” In bringing this Consumer Protection Class Action, Lydia and Blair protected thousands of government employees from similar misrepresentations about their rights.
Punitive Damages in Washington State
Washington generally does not provide the opportunity for a jury to award punitive damages—damages intended to punish and deter the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff. However, when a defendant’s conduct occurred in another state, Washington courts can apply the punitive damages law of that state.
MultiPlan moved to dismiss the class representatives’ claim of punitive damages under Illinois law, arguing that the company’s geographic dispersion of work-from-home employees made it unaccountable to Illinois law. The Court found that MultiPlan did, in fact, have a responsibility to comply with Illinois law because that state was the center of MultiPlan’s subrogation operations.
MultiPlan also argued the company’s conduct was not so egregious as to permit punitive damages. Judge Liu denied the motion and left the issue for a jury:
Defendants’ assert their conduct was error. However, evidence of actual knowledge, continuation of misrepresentation of plan status even after upper management awareness, and evidence regarding financial incentives to maximize recovery present a factual question on whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes willful or wanton conduct under Illinois law.
If you may be part of this class or want to pursue a class action, Stritmatter Law can help.
CPA Liability
CPA Injury
Punitive Damages
Vicarious Liability