United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
DAVID MAGGARD, JUNE MAGGARD, and BONITA HESS on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC. d/b/a CCC VALUESOURCE and CCC VALUESCOPE, Defendant.
CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant CCC Information Services Inc.'s ("CCC") to compel the appraisal of the vehicle of Plaintiffs David and June Maggard (collectively the "Maggards") and stay the action. For the following reasons, the motion to compel the appraisal and stay the action is granted.
The Maggards held an automobile insurance policy (the "Policy") issued by The Hartford ("The Hartford"), an insurance company. In July 2013, the Maggards, both residents of West Virginia, were involved in a car accident that resulted in The Hartford finding that their vehicle was a "total loss." The Maggards submitted a claim for their vehicle to The Hartford and CCC provided a valuation report for the vehicle. The Maggards accepted payment from The Hartford for their vehicle in July of 2013.
The Policy contains a section entitled "Part D-Coverage For Damage To Your Auto." It states:
A. The Appraisal Provision is replaced by the following:
1. If we and you do not agree on the amount of loss, either may demand, in writing, an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser and notify the other party of the selected appraiser within twenty days of such demand. The two appraisers will select an umpire. If the appraisers cannot agree upon an umpire within fifteen days, either party may request the selection of an umpire [sic] made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. The appraisers will state separately the actual cash value and the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to in writing by any two will be binding.
Each party will:
a. Pay its chosen appraiser; and
b. Bear the expenses of the appraisal and umpire equally.
2. We do not waive any of our rights under this policy by agreeing to an appraisal.
On April 2, 2014, the Maggards, individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated plaintiffs, filed suit against CCC, alleging that the appraisal process CCC utilizes purposefully manipulates the value of a vehicle to come in below the actual fair market value of the car. This underassessment of the fair market value of a vehicle allows insurance companies that are responsible for the payment of claims to pay substantial less than is due to their customers. The Maggards allege that they were insured with The Hartford and, stemming from that relationship, they had their vehicle valued by CCC. The Maggards claim that they no longer possess the vehicle. On July 8, 2014, The Hartford made a written request to the Maggards, asking that they participate in the appraisal process.
On April 2, 2014, the Maggards filed a six-count complaint, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, alleging that CCC: (1) violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act ("ICFA"); (2) engaged in negligent misrepresentation; (3) engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent concealment; (4) was in breach of ...