FILED
2026 FEB 02 01:29 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 VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF REGENCE BLUESHIELD
This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence Blueshield. The Court reviewed and considered the following pleadings submitted by the parties:
1.Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence Blueshield;
2.Declaration of Elizabeth Drago with supporting documents;
3.Declaration of Errol King with supporting documents;
4. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence Blueshield;
6.Declaration of Andrew Ackley with supporting documents;
7.Defendants’ Reply;
8.Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence BlueShield;
9.Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Ackley in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence BlueShield.
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:
When viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the nature and extent of Regence's control over MultiPlan's performance. Multiplan’s representatives, Ms. Garcia and Ms, Wagner, provided testimony regarding the nature and extent of Regence’s control over Multiplan’s performance that appears to contradict Defendants’ position. A reasonable jury could find that Regence retained sufficient control over the manner of Multiplan’s performance to establish an agency relationship.
Genuine issues of material fact also exist regarding the scope of authority granted under the attorney-in-fact provision. The power of attorney covers Multiplan’s communications with and taking action on behalf of Regence’s clients and negotiating techniques. Whether Multiplan was acting within the scope of its authority when communicating about subrogation liens and making ERISA representations is a fact question.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Vicarious Liability of Regence Blueshield 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: *337255293*
PageCount: Thisdocumentcontains 2 page(s)plusthissignaturepage.