Sue Hong v. Bank of America, Na

facts almost identical to those here, the Washington Supreme Court held that even

2 if “a rate filer and other intermediaries jointly act to artificially inflate the rate,

allowing suit against any of these parties may still have the effect of directly

attacking the rate and causing courts to ‘reevaluate agency-approved rates.’” Id. at

423 (quoting McCarthy, 347 P.3d at 875).

Under Alpert, Hong’s claims “run squarely against the filed rate” and are

therefore barred. 494 P.3d at 423. QBE filed its LPI rate schedule and calculation

methodology with the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC). In

approving the rate, the OIC determined that, among other things, the rates were not

“excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.” Wash. Rev. Code §§

48.19.020, 48.19.040; Alpert, 494 P.3d at 420 (explaining that because state

insurance law requires that “[t]he rates can be neither too high nor too low,”

approved rates “are per se reasonable” (citation omitted)). Hong does not claim

that QBE sold insurance that was not “in accordance with its filing.” See Wash.

Rev. Code § 48.19.040(6). Nor does she dispute that Bank of America charged her

the premium that…