Facts

In March 2020 Sam Kurshan had personal automobile insurance issued by Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) when the State of California and other states enacted shelter-in-place mandates. From April through June 2020, the California Insurance Commissioner (CIC) Ricardo Lara issued a series of bulletins ordering insurers to make "initial premium refund[s]" for certain months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 "to all adversely impacted California policyholders . . . [of] [private] automobile insurance." In response, Safeco issued a one-time 15% refund on two months of automobile premiums. On February 2, 2022, Kurshan brought a putative class action lawsuit against Safeco in federal court, alleging violations of California Unfair Competition Law and a claim for unjust enrichment. The class included all California residents who purchased personal automobile, motorcycle, or RV insurance from Safeco covering any portion of the time period from March 1, 2020, through March 1, 2021.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he purchased personal automobile insurance in California from defendant prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government shutdown and stay-at-home orders that followed. He maintained that during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, he barely drove his personal automobile at all and accordingly, exposed his car, himself, and the general to far fewer risks than what was expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemics. Moreover, plaintiff argued that the 15% refund issued defendant was not sufficient to compensate consumers for the overpayment of premiums and defied the CIC bulletins.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief, the CIC had exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of setting insurance rates, and the California Department of Insurance also had primary jurisdiction over the issues raised. In particular, defendant maintained that plaintiff lacked standing because he did not and could not plead any facts establishing a sufficient likelihood of repetitive harm. Finally, defendant contended that it was more appropriate for the CIC, which had relevant technical expertise, to consider plaintiff's claims rather than the courts.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.