FILED
2026 FEB 02 01:32 PM KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED
CASE #: 23-2-18847-1 KNT
HONORABLE KENT LIU
Hearing Date: August 15, 2025 Time: 10:00 am
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
LYDIA ZOU, individually; BLAIR FLEMING, individually,
Plaintiffs, v.
MULTIPLAN INC., a foreign corporation; REGENCE BLUESHIELD, a Washington corporation.
Defendants.
No. 23-2-18847-1 KNT
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTIFIED CLASS ISSUES
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion entitled “Motion for Summary Judgment on CPA Liability.” The Court reviewed and considered the following pleadings submitted by the parties:
1.Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on CPA Liability;
2.Declaration of Andrew Ackley with Exhibits;
3.Declaration of Lydia Zou;
4. Declaration of Blair Fleming;
5.Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion;
6.Declaration of Stephanie Franc;
7.Plaintiffs’ Reply;
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CPA LIABILITY - 1
8.Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Ackley with Exhibits.
And the Court also considered the oral argument of the parties in open court on September 23, 2025, and deeming itself fully advised, finds as follows:
The Court construes Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on CPA Liability as a motion for partial summary judgment on the three issues certified for class treatment: (1) whether Defendants' conduct was unfair or deceptive, (2) whether it occurred in trade or commerce, and (3) whether it affects the public interest. Judge Amini's certification order identified these three elements as common questions for class treatment while reserving causation and damages as individual issues.
The Court finds as a matter of law that Defendants' conduct in issuing ERISA lien notices to class members whose plans were not governed by ERISA constituted an unfair anddeceptiveactorpractice,occurringintradeorcommerce,thataffectsthepublicinterest. Defendants sent notice of ERISA lien letters to over 160 government employees whose plans were excluded from ERISA. Defendants' own training materials instructed employees how to identify government plans as non-ERISA. MultiPlan employees testified that misrepresenting plans as ERISA was "unfair," "wrong," and had "the capacity to deceive." Under Panag v. Farmers Insurance Co., 166 Wn.2d 27 (2009), deceptive subrogation practices violate the CPA as a matter of law. Defendants' argument that the ERISA misrepresentation was immaterial because “first priority” plan language would result in identical outcomes is unpersuasive. Misrepresenting governing law is material and the made-whole rule cannot be contractually waived. Group Health Cooperative v. Coon, 193 Wn.2d 841 (2019) (private health contracts may not disavow the made-whole rule).
Individual class members must still establish causation and damages to recover.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certified Class Issues is GRANTED.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2026.
Electronic signature attached
King County Superior Court Judicial Electronic Signature Page
CaseNumber: 23-2-18847-1 KNT
CaseTitle: ZOU ET ANO VS MULTIPLAN INC ET ANO
DocumentTitle: Order
DateSigned: 02/02/2026
Judge: Kent Liu
Key/IDNumber: *337256917*
PageCount: Thisdocumentcontains 2 page(s)plusthissignaturepage.