FILED
2026 FEB 02 01:28 PM KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED
CASE #: 23-2-18847-1 KNT
HONORABLE KENT LIU
Hearing Date: January 23, 2026 Time: 2:00 pm
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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages. The Court reviewed and considered the following pleadings submitted by the parties:
1.Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages;
2.Declaration of Errol King;
3.Declaration of Stephanie Franc;
4. Declaration of Emily Claire Smith;
5.Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Motion for CR 56(F) Continuance;
6.Declaration of Andrew Ackley;
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
7.Defendants’ReplyinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgmentregardingPunitive Damages;
8.Supplemental Declaration of Stephanie Francin Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Punitive Damages;
9.Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Punitive Damages;
10. Declaration of Andrew Ackley in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Punitive Damages.
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:
Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether MultiPlan's subrogation operations were centered in Illinois. MultiPlan's subrogation subsidiary isregisteredinIllinois,andthesubrogationofficeisphysicallylocatedinNaperville. Key management personnel resided in Illinois during the class period. The MSA and the Business Associate Agreement were signed in Illinois. There is evidence that MultiPlan's subrogation operations were directed and managed from Illinois, even if individual employees worked remotely in other states.
Washington courts will apply another state's punitive damages law when that state has a stronger interest in punishment and deterrence. Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, 31 Wn. App. 2d 100 (2025). Erickson rejected the idea that Washington precludes punitive damages. For punitive damages, the state where the tortious conduct occurred typically has the dominant interest. The evidence suggests that Illinois is the center of MultiPlan's subrogation operations, giving Illinois the most significant relationship to the punitive damages issue.
Genuine issues of material fact also exist as to whether defendants’ conduct rises to the level supporting punitive damages under Illinois law. 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.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2026.
Electronic signature attached
THE HONORABLE KENT LIU
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: *337254324*
PageCount: Thisdocumentcontains 3 page(s)plusthissignaturepage.