Whitehead v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Chase Whitehead,
Plaintiff,
v.
Amica Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-22-01978-PHX-DJH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Chase Whitehead’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class (Doc.
48, as amended by Doc. 52) (“Final Approval Motion”). On August 6, 2026, the Court
held a final fairness hearing (“Final Hearing”) to determine whether settlement in this class
action suit is proper. (Doc. 51). The Court expressed concern that the Parties’ settlement
did not indicate how unclaimed funds would be distributed. (Id.) The Court preliminarily
approved the class action settlement and ordered the Parties promptly file an amended
motion. (Id.) On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed the amended Final Approval Motion.
(Doc. 52, amending Doc. 48). Defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company
(“Defendant”) did not file a response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion and enters Judgment accordingly.
I. Background
Plaintiff brought this class action against Defendant concerning the stacking of
insurance coverages of multiple vehicles within the same policy. (see Doc. 1-3 at ¶¶ 3–6)
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in an automotive collision that resulted in over
$160,000 in damage, and the non-party at fault was uninsured. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–10). Plaintiff
was an insured under his father’s policy that covered two vehicles and provided, in relevant
part, uninsured motorist coverage of $100,000 per person and an aggregate limit of
$300,000 per collision. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–18). Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant seeking
full coverage on both vehicles; Defendant paid the policy limit for only one of the vehicles.
(Id. at ¶¶ 20–25). Plaintiff alleged that the policy provisions did not limit stacking
coverages of multiple vehicles in the same policy, and regardless Defendant failed to
comply with disclosure requirements of A.R.S. § 20-259.01(H). (Id. at ¶¶ 26–40).
In or around October 2022, Plaintiff sought class certification in Maricopa County
Superior Court on behalf of himself and those individuals with stacked uninsured motorist
(“UM”) or underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policies with Defendant alleging claims of
breach of insurance contract and bad faith under A.R.S. § 20-259.01. (See id. at ¶¶ 71–
72). After removing this case to federal court (Doc. 1), Defendant moved to stay the
proceedings pending the decision from the Arizona Supreme Court on two certified
questions relating to stacking UM and UIM coverage of multiple vehicles within a single
insurance policy and disclosure requirements under A.R.S. § 20-259.01 contending these
related to Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 7 at 6, 24). The Court granted Defendant’s motion.
(Doc. 20).
In July 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court in Franklin v. CSAA General Insurance
Co., 532 P.3d 1145, 1151 (Ariz. 2023), held that under A.R.S. § 20-259.01, a single policy
insuring multiple vehicles provides different coverages for each vehicle. More specifically,
that court held:
(1) § 20-259.01’s text, history, and purpose provide that an
insured covered by a multi-vehicle policy has necessarily
“purchased” multiple UIM coverages for each vehicle under
subsection (H); thus, rather than employing singular
definitions of “coverage” in their policies, insurers must
comply with the statute’s requirements in order to prevent
insureds from intra-policy stacking; and (2) § 20-259.01(B)
does not limit UIM coverage.
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id. at 1153. This settled the issue in many class actions, including this case. Thereafter,
on August 2, 2023, the Court lifted the stay in this case. (Doc. 23).
A. Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of
Class
Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in pre-certification discovery and settlement
negotiations. (Doc. 36 at 11–12). The Parties participated in an all-day mediation to
negotiate the claims related to UM/UIM coverage for policies sold in Arizona by
Defendant. (Id. at 12). On January 29, 2024, the Parties informed the Court of a settlement
resolving all claims in this case on a class wide basis. (Doc. 32). The Parties entered into
a Settlement Agreement on July 15, 2024. (Docs. 36 at 13; 36-1 at 16). Plaintiff then filed
an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Certification of the Settlement Class (Doc. 36). Plaintiff provided the Parties’ Settlement
Agreement and proposed notice protocol to the Court. (Docs. 36-1; 36-3).
The Court summarized the relevant portions of the Settlement Agreement in its
earlier Order and incorporates that description here. (Doc. 39 at 2–3). The Court first
denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice for failing to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 23(a)(1)’s numerosity and Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirements.
(Doc. 39 at 6–12, 15–21). Plaintiff then filed an Unopposed Supplemental Motion
addressing these deficiencies (Doc. 40). Finding Plaintiff’s supplemental motion satisfied
Rules 23(a)(1) and (b)(3), the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and preliminarily certified the Settlement Class. (Doc. 42 at 6). The Court
incorporates all relevant portions of those Orders here.
B. The Final Hearing
In advance of the Final Hearing, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Final Approval and
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Award (Docs. 48; 50).1 In his Final
Approval Motion, Plaintiff argued that Rule 23(e)’s notice requirements have been
1 A separate order shall be entered on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees,
Costs, and Service Award (Doc. 50). The order shall in no way affect or delay the finality
of this Judgment and shall not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
satisfied, the deadline for Class Members to request to be excluded or object passed, and
no requests to be excluded or objections were received by Class Counsel. (Doc. 48 at ¶ A).
Defendant did not file a response.
The Final Hearing was held on August 6, 2026, to determine whether the proposed
settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class
Members as required by Rule 23(e)(2). (Doc. 51). No objections nor requests to be
excluded from the Settlement Agreement by any Class Member were filed with the Court,
and no Class Member appeared at the Final Hearing.
At the Final Hearing, the Court expressed concern that the Parties’ settlement did
not indicate how unclaimed funds, if any, would be distributed. (Doc. 51). The Court
preliminarily approved the class action settlement and ordered the Parties file an amended
motion. (Id.) On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Final Approval
Motion. (Doc. 52, amending Doc. 48).
II. Legal Standard
While the Ninth Circuit has declared a strong judicial policy for settlement of class
actions, Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992), this does
not relieve the moving party of its burden of showing they have satisfied each of Rule 23’s
requirements, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 (1979), nor the court of its duty
pursuant to Rule 23(e). Accordingly, class actions settlements require the court’s approval.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (“The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class—or a class
proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement—may be settled, voluntarily dismissed,
or compromised only with the court’s approval.”).
This means that approval of a class action settlement moves forward in two stages:
preliminary approval, and once notice is given to class members, final approval. Cf. Nat’l
Rural Telecommunications Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
At the preliminary approval stage, the court conducts a preliminary fairness evaluation to
determine if the settlement notice of the class action should issue to class members and, if
applicable, whether the proposed settlement class should be certified. See David F. Herr,
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 21.632 (4th ed. 2023). At the final approval stage, the primary
inquiry is whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally “fair, adequate, and
reasonable.” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 818 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). The court’s
“only role in reviewing the substance of that settlement is to ensure that it is fair, adequate,
and free from collusion.” Lane, 696 F.3d at 819. Several factors are instructive in making
this determination:
1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; 2) the risk, expense, complexity, and
likely duration of further litigation; 3) the risk of maintaining class action
status throughout the trial; 4) the amount offered in settlement; 5) the extent
of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; 6) the experience
and views of counsel; 7) the presence of a governmental participant; and 8)
the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.
Id. “The relative degree of importance to be attached to any particular factor will depend
upon … the unique facts and circumstances presented by each individual case.” In re
Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prod. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597
(9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Additionally, Rule 23(e)(2) requires the court “to consider ‘the terms of any
proposed award of attorney’s fees’ and scrutinize the settlement for evidence of collusion
or conflicts of interest before approving the settlement as fair.” Kim v. Allison, 8 F.4th
1170, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). When the settlement takes
place before formal class certification, the resulting settlement agreement “must withstand
an even higher level of scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than
is ordinarily required under Rule 23(e) before securing the court’s approval as fair.” In re
Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2011); Amchem
Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (recognizing that the must pay
“undiluted, even heightened, attention” to class certification and fairness requirements in a
settlement approval context). The so-called Bluetooth factors—also referred to as “subtle
signs” of collusion—include: (i) “when counsel receive a disproportionate distribution of
the settlement, or when the class receives no monetary distribution but class counsel are
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
amply rewarded”; (ii) the existence of a “clear sailing” arrangement, which provides “for
the payment of attorneys’ fees separate and apart from class funds,” or a provision under
which defendant agrees not to object to the attorneys’ fees sought; and (iii) “when the
parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to defendants rather than be added to the class
fund.” In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The court must show that it comprehensively explored the relevant factors and that
the settlement is not the product of collusion amongst the settling parties. In re Mego Fin.
Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000), as amended (June 19, 2000).
III. Discussion
A. Final Certification of Settlement Class
When considering a motion for final approval of a class action settlement, the court
must perform the threshold task of certifying the class under Rule 23(a) and (b). Amchem,
521 U.S. at 621 (holding that satisfying Rule 23(e) “function[s] as an additional
requirement” to Rule 23(a) and (b)’s requirements that a “class” designation is
appropriate).
The Court conducted an examination of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3)’s requirements in its
prior Orders concerning the propriety of class certification for settlement purposes and,
after supplemental briefing from Plaintiff, found certification to be warranted (Docs. 39 at
3–20; 42 at 2–5). Because no additional substantive issues concerning class certification
have been raised since the Court preliminarily certified the class on February 18, 2026, this
Order incorporates by reference its analyses as set forth in its prior Orders. (Docs. 39; 42).
Accordingly, the Court finds that certification of the class only for settlement pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) is appropriate in this case.
B. Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
To approve a settlement of a class action, the court must: (i) ensure notice is sent to
all class members; (ii) hold a hearing and make a finding that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (iii) confirm that the parties seeking approval file a statement
identifying the settlement agreement; and (iv) be shown that class members were given an
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
opportunity to object. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)–(5). The Settlement Agreement in this
action was previously filed on the court’s docket (Doc. 36-1).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the Settlement Agreement, and all other relevant
material submitted in connection with the Final Hearing,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, and all
actions within this litigation (collectively, the “Action”) and over the parties to the
Settlement Agreement, including all members of the Settlement Class and Defendant.
2. For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise set forth herein, the Court
incorporates the definitions contained in the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement
Agreement, Doc. 36-1 at 3, Ex. A). The Court hereby finally approves and confirms the
settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that said settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
3. The following “Settlement Class” was previously certified pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by
Defendant in Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for
uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance, and who
received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured
benefits for only one unit of (or one vehicle’s) UM or UIM
coverage during the Class Period, as reflected in the agreed-
upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.
4. The “Class period” means October 18, 2016, through July 14, 2024.
5. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court previously appointed
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as Class Counsel, and the named Plaintiff, Chase
Whitehead, as the Class Representative on behalf of the Settlement Class. (Doc. 42 at 6–
7).
6. Plaintiff’s notice of the Class Settlement to the Settlement Class was the best
notice practicable under the circumstances. The notice satisfied due process and provided
adequate information to the Settlement Class of all matters relating to the Class Settlement,
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and (e)(1).
7. As of July 8, 2026, the deadline to request exclusion for twenty-two Class
Members, no Class Member had requested exclusion from the Settlement Class.
8. No objections were filed regarding the Class Settlement.
9. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s proposed Plan of Distribution, proposing to
pay Settlement Class Members as set forth in Plaintiff’s Preliminary Approval Motion
(Doc. 36 at 9–11), and Plaintiff’s Final Approval Motion (Doc. 48, as amended by Doc.
52) is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Noll v. eBay, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 593, 601, 607 (N.D.
Cal. 2015). The Plan of Distribution does not unfairly favor any Class Member or group
of Class Members to the detriment of others.
10. The Court orders Plaintiff, through his Settlement Administrator, to make all
disbursements to the Class as follows:
• no later than thirty (30) days after determining which Class Members
do not have Medicare, the Settlement Administrator shall make a final
disbursement to the Class Members who do not have Medicare;
• no later than thirty (30) days after determining which Class Members
have Medicare liens, the Settlement Administrator shall make a final
disbursement to the Class Members who do not have a Medicare lien;
• no later than thirty (30) days after the resolution of all Medicare liens,
the Settlement Administrator shall make a final disbursement to the
remaining Class Members;
• after the final distribution to the Class Members is complete and after
all administrative costs have been paid (the “First Distribution”), if
more than $50,000 is left in the Settlement Fund, a “Second
Distribution” shall be made to the Class Members who accepted their
payments from the First Distribution; and
• if less than $50,000 is left in the Settlement Fund after the First
Distribution, or if there are any remaining funds after the Second
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Distribution, the remaining amount in the Settlement Fund shall be
distributed to cy pres recipient, United Policyholders, with the funds
to be used solely for programs, education, advocacy, assistance,
amicus curiae participation, or other activities for the benefit of
property and casualty insurance policyholders in the State of Arizona.
11. Without affecting the finality of this Order in any way, this Court hereby
retains continuing jurisdiction over:
a. implementation of this settlement and any distribution to members of
the Class pursuant to further orders of this Court;
b. disposition of the Settlement Fund;
c. the Action until Final Judgment contemplated hereby has become
effective, and each and every act agreed to be performed by the parties
all have been performed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement;
d. hearing and ruling on any matters relating to the plan of distribution
of settlement proceeds; and
e. all parties to the Action and Releasing Parties, for the purpose of
enforcing and administering the Settlement Agreement and the mutual
releases and other documents contemplated by or executed in
connection with the Settlement Agreement.
12. The Court finds, under Rules 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
that Final Judgment of Dismissal with prejudice as to the Defendant (“Judgment”) should
be entered forthwith and further finds that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of
the Judgment, as Final Judgment, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class (Doc. 48, as amended by Doc.
52) is GRANTED and Judgment is entered.
/ / /
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate
this matter.
Dated this 21st day of September, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-01978-DJH Document 53 Filed 09/21/26 Page 10 of 10