Sadler

MEMORANDUM **

Tara and Donald Sadler (the “Sadlers”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm on their claims of bad faith and alleged violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded as a matter of law that State Farm did not have a duty to preapprove Tara’s surgery under the personal injury protection (“PIP”) provision of the Sadlers’ automobile insurance policy. The PIP does not require preapproval for medical treatment, explicitly allows State Farm to obtain an independent medical examination (“IME”), and indicates that payment is to be made as medical expenses are incurred. Further, there is no Washington law recognizing an implied duty to preauthorize treatment under a PIP. Because State Farm had no implied duty to preapprove Tara’s surgery, State Farm cannot be charged with any harm flowing from Tara’s decision to await the outcome of the IME before proceeding with treatment.

The district court also properly granted State Farm summary judgment on the Sadlers’ related claim that State Farm had acted in bad faith…