CPA claim in Washington

2026First, it held that any claims that did not allege a corresponding FIPA violation failed to make out the first element of a CPA claim under “option (1)” because they were “not pled as per se claims.” Yet it then held those same counts 7 “A per se unfair trade practice exists when a statute which has been declared by the Legislature to constitute an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce has been violated.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 786 . 10 failed under “option (3)” because FIPA regulated the conduct underlying them.

2026First, it held that any claims that did not allege a corresponding FIPA violation failed to make out the first element of a CPA claim under “option (1)” because they were “not pled as per se claims.” Yet it then held those same counts 7 “A per se unfair trade practice exists when a statute which has been declared by the Legislature to constitute an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce has been violated.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 786 . 10 failed under “option (3)” because FIPA regulated the conduct underlying them.

2026E.g., Panag, 166 Wn.2d at 38 (while the five CPA requirements do not explicitly include standing, standing is subsumed within both the public interest impact and the injury requirements). 10 his or her business or property” can bring a private CPA claim.

2025Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 65 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deceptive collection methods under the CPA “need not remand payment to establish injury: other expenses incurred as a result of the deceptive practice may satisfy the injury element”). 12 86812-8/13 defined under RCW 19.86.090 where there has been no adjudication of the CPA claim. 16 See Roemmich v. 3M Co., 21 Wn. App. 2d 939 , 957, 509 P.3d 306 (2022) (“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, ‘we may affirm the trial court on any basis that the record supports.’”) (quoting State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 799

2016Id. 9 No. 741 33-1-1/10 interest, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) a causal link between the unfair or deceptive act complained of and the injury suffered.”35 The failure to establish even one of these elements is fatal to a CPA claim.36 Whether a particular action gives rise to a CPA violation is reviewable as a question of law.37 Nilsen offers several arguments why his CPA claim should have survived summary judgment, but his core premise is that Nationstar lacked authority to initiate foreclosure because it was not the owner of his note.

2016Id. 9 No. 741 33-1-1/10 interest, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) a causal link between the unfair or deceptive act complained of and the injury suffered.”35 The failure to establish even one of these elements is fatal to a CPA claim.36 Whether a particular action gives rise to a CPA violation is reviewable as a question of law.37 Nilsen offers several arguments why his CPA claim should have survived summary judgment, but his core premise is that Nationstar lacked authority to initiate foreclosure because it was not the owner of his note.

2009Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 313 . 9 ¶36 The dissent takes the fact that the physician was a learned intermediary to whom the duty to warn ran and the fact that we held the physician did not lack standing to bring a CPA claim because he was not a consumer, and turns the Fisons analysis into a requirement that the “learned intermediary” status of the physician constitutes one of a narrow class of special relationships that qualify an individual to bring suit.

2009Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 313 . 9 ¶36 The dissent takes the fact that the physician was a learned intermediary to whom the duty to warn ran and the fact that we held the physician did not lack standing to bring a CPA claim because he was not a consumer, and turns the Fisons analysis into a requirement that the “learned intermediary” status of the physician constitutes one of a narrow class of special relationships that qualify an individual to bring suit.

2023And to prevail on a CPA claim, the plaintiff must show injury to their “business or property.” Id.

2023And to prevail on a CPA claim, the plaintiff must show injury to their “business or property.” Id.

2026In affirming dismissal, our decision relied on these findings. 11 Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, No. 104162-4 (Stephens, C.J., dissenting) of the required elements of a CPA claim, these elements “should not be read in isolation so as to render absurd conclusions.” Ambach, 167 Wn.2d at 178 .

2026In affirming dismissal, our decision relied on these findings. 11 Montes v. SPARC Group LLC, No. 104162-4 (Stephens, C.J., dissenting) of the required elements of a CPA claim, these elements “should not be read in isolation so as to render absurd conclusions.” Ambach, 167 Wn.2d at 178 .

2024Similarly, in Trujillo, the issue was whether an alleged violation of the deeds of trust act was sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ CPA claim. 183 Wn.2d at 827, 834-35 .

2024Similarly, in Trujillo, the issue was whether an alleged violation of the deeds of trust act was sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ CPA claim. 183 Wn.2d at 827, 834-35 .

2013Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150 , 930 P.2d 288 (1997). -10- 69867-2-1/11 The Reisingers contend that Deutsche committed a vicarious CPA violation when AHMSI refused to negotiate a loan modification in good faith: While appellants understood that AHM[S]I was under no obligation to modify their mortgage, by accepting appellants' application, AHMSI took upon itself an obligation to process that application in a professional manner and to act in good faith.

2013Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150 , 930 P.2d 288 (1997). -10- 69867-2-1/11 The Reisingers contend that Deutsche committed a vicarious CPA violation when AHMSI refused to negotiate a loan modification in good faith: While appellants understood that AHM[S]I was under no obligation to modify their mortgage, by accepting appellants' application, AHMSI took upon itself an obligation to process that application in a professional manner and to act in good faith.

2021Instead, courts consider whether the insurer has acted without “reasonable justification.” Id. at 917 ; see also Whistman v. West Am., 38 Wn. App. 580, 585 , 686 P.2d 1086 (1984) (“Actions by an insurer done 3 Omni argues that Kosovan cannot maintain a CPA claim based on an allegation that an insurer breached the duty to exercise good faith.

2021Instead, courts consider whether the insurer has acted without “reasonable justification.” Id. at 917 ; see also Whistman v. West Am., 38 Wn. App. 580, 585 , 686 P.2d 1086 (1984) (“Actions by an insurer done 3 Omni argues that Kosovan cannot maintain a CPA claim based on an allegation that an insurer breached the duty to exercise good faith.

2024And finally, in his CPA claim, Caneer alleged the Grocers engaged in “unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices by collecting sales tax on food items that are exempt from sales tax,” claiming injury in the form of paying the unnecessary tax.6 5 Caneer asserts hypothetically that the Grocers could be profiting from their scheme by “earning interest from holding the improperly collected sales tax for a time before remitting it to the [DOR] or using it to offset what [the Grocers] owed to the [DOR] for [business and occupation] tax purposes.” Nonetheless, Caneer’s claim turns on the propriety of

2024And finally, in his CPA claim, Caneer alleged the Grocers engaged in “unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices by collecting sales tax on food items that are exempt from sales tax,” claiming injury in the form of paying the unnecessary tax.6 5 Caneer asserts hypothetically that the Grocers could be profiting from their scheme by “earning interest from holding the improperly collected sales tax for a time before remitting it to the [DOR] or using it to offset what [the Grocers] owed to the [DOR] for [business and occupation] tax purposes.” Nonetheless, Caneer’s claim turns on the propriety of

2026To the contrary, our Supreme Court rejected the idea that the common law sets “exclusive ways the first element[] of a CPA claim can be established.” Klem, 176 Wn.2d at 785 .

2026To the contrary, our Supreme Court rejected the idea that the common law sets “exclusive ways the first element[] of a CPA claim can be established.” Klem, 176 Wn.2d at 785 .

2024Lyons v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 181 Wn.2d 775, 785 , 336 P.3d 1142 (2014).

2015See Lyons, 181 Wn.2d at 785 . ¶29 To satisfy the second and third elements of her CPA claim — that NWTS’s acts occurred in trade or commerce and that they affected the public interest — Trujillo alleges, “Wells [Fargo] makes these unfounded claims to foreclose on defaulting borrowers as a routine part of its foreclosure activities on behalf of Fannie Mae.

2018On August 30, 2013, the superior court granted summary judgment dismissal of the CPA claim against MERS. 13 175 Wn.2d 83, 90 , 285 P.3d 34 (2012). 14 Id. at 98-110 . 15 Id. at 119-20 . 5 No. 75946-9-1/6 DECISION We review an order granting summary judgment de novo.16 Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.17 The CPA prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practic

2018On August 30, 2013, the superior court granted summary judgment dismissal of the CPA claim against MERS. 13 175 Wn.2d 83, 90 , 285 P.3d 34 (2012). 14 Id. at 98-110 . 15 Id. at 119-20 . 5 No. 75946-9-1/6 DECISION We review an order granting summary judgment de novo.16 Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.17 The CPA prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practic

2017Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396, 406-07 , 759 P.2d 418 (1988) (sellers practices, which were custom and usage in the trade, led to sale of unsound horses and thus were sufficient to 7 GEICO contends that the University did not present specific evidence that GEICO's acts or omissions affected policyholders, that GEICO did not have enough time for effective discovery, and that the University asserted a basis for its CPA claim In its opening statement that it did not later support at trial.

2017Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396, 406-07 , 759 P.2d 418 (1988) (sellers practices, which were custom and usage in the trade, led to sale of unsound horses and thus were sufficient to 7 GEICO contends that the University did not present specific evidence that GEICO's acts or omissions affected policyholders, that GEICO did not have enough time for effective discovery, and that the University asserted a basis for its CPA claim In its opening statement that it did not later support at trial.

2009See, e.g., Demopolis v. Peoples Nat'l Bank of Wash., 59 Wash.App. 105 , 796 P.2d 426 (1990) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim predicated on allegedly defamatory remarks made by adverse party's attorney); Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wash.App. 366 , 773 P.2d 871 (1989) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim against shoe salesman for personal injuries suffered during a baseball game due to allegedly defective shoes). [6] As discussed in Green , the insurance code imposes a statutory duty of good faith on "the insurer, the insured, their providers, and their representatives." RCW 48.01.03

2009App. 105 , 796 P.2d 426 (1990) (affirming dismissal of CPA claim predicated on allegedly defamatory remarks made by adverse party’s attorney); Stevens v. Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc., 54 Wn.

2001On review, we concluded that there was no supportable informed consent claim, no showing of an improper entrepreneurial motive, and no showing of a resulting injury: "To maintain a CPA claim there must be a showing of a lack of informed consent resulting from dishonest and unfair practices motivated by financial gain." Benoy, 66 Wash.App. at 65 , 831 P.2d 167 (citing Quimby, 45 Wash. App. 175 , 724 P.2d 403 ).

2001On review, we concluded that there was no supportable informed consent claim, no showing of an improper entrepreneurial motive, and no showing of a resulting injury: "To maintain a CPA claim there must be a showing of a lack of informed consent resulting from dishonest and unfair practices motivated by financial gain." Benoy, 66 Wash.App. at 65 , 831 P.2d 167 (citing Quimby, 45 Wash. App. 175 , 724 P.2d 403 ).

2024Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 37 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009). -5- “Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim.” Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 110 Wn. App. 290, 298 , 38 P.3d 1024 (2002).

2024Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 37 , 204 P.3d 885 (2009). -5- “Failure to satisfy even one of the elements is fatal to a CPA claim.” Sorrel v. Eagle Healthcare, Inc., 110 Wn. App. 290, 298 , 38 P.3d 1024 (2002).

2008Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483 , 859 P.2d 26 , 865 P.2d 507 (1993) (trial court erred by failing to segregate where plaintiff prevailed on one of four claims); Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 744 , 733 P.2d 208 (1987) (CPA (Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW) plaintiff not entitled to attorney fees for aspects of suit unrelated to CPA violation); Sing v. John L.

2008Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483 , 859 P.2d 26 , 865 P.2d 507 (1993) (trial court erred by failing to segregate where plaintiff prevailed on one of four claims); Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos, 107 Wn.2d 735, 744 , 733 P.2d 208 (1987) (CPA (Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW) plaintiff not entitled to attorney fees for aspects of suit unrelated to CPA violation); Sing v. John L.

2026Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976).

2026Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 322 , 553 P.2d 423 (1976).

2019In Coventry, we held a CPA claim for insurance bad faith was actionable even though the insurer properly denied coverage. 136 Wn.2d at 285 .

2019In Coventry, we held a CPA claim for insurance bad faith was actionable even though the insurer properly denied coverage. 136 Wn.2d at 285 .

2021Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 553 , 23 P.3d 455 (2001).

2021Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 553 , 23 P.3d 455 (2001).

2009Cf. Wright, 104 Wash.App. at 479-80 , 16 P.3d 1268 (upholding CPA claim based on the "advertising, marketing, and sale of diet drugs").

2007Id. at 485, 16 P.3d 1268 . ¶ 13 These cases demonstrate that the entrepreneurial aspects of health care can form the foundation of a CPA claim.