Barten v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
28 F. Supp. 3d 978
D. Ariz.2014Background
- Barten was insured by State Farm under a Michigan no-fault policy after a 1995 Lansing accident that left him quadriplegic.
- He moved from Michigan to Arizona in 1997; Michigan-based handling of claims continued for a time, then Arizona contacts increased.
- Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation addressing three partial summary judgment motions filed by State Farm.
- State Farm moved to apply Michigan law to contract and bad-faith claims and to limit damages under the one-year-back rule; the court analyzed choice-of-law rules under Restatement §§ 145, 146.
- The court adopted Michigan law for the contract claim and Arizona law for the bad-faith claim, with Arizona law governing the statute of limitations and discovery-rule issues for bad faith.
- Genuine issues remained for trial on 16 hours of attendant care and on several “hurdles” to benefits, while some issues were decided in State Farm’s favor on partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for contract and bad-faith claims | Barten urged Michigan law for contract; Arizona for bad faith. | State Farm pressed Michigan law for contract and Arizona for bad faith. | Contract: Michigan law; Bad faith: Arizona law. |
| Limitations on contract damages | Equitable considerations may toll limits; one-year-back argued. | One-year-back rule applies to contract damages. | Contract damages limited by Michigan one-year-back rule. |
| Bad-faith statute of limitations and discovery rule | Discovery rule tolls Arizona’s statute for bad faith. | Discovery rule unresolved; limitations issue for trial. | Discovery rule questions remain for the trier of fact. |
| Entitlement to 16 hours per day attendant care | 16 hours per day is reasonably necessary; supporting medical evidence. | Evidence suggests only 3 hours; credibility issues for trial. | Genuine issues of material fact; no summary judgment on 16-hour claim. |
| Hurdles to recovery; bad-faith and punitive-damages theories | Defendant imposed obstacles; bad faith and punitive damages possible. | Some hurdles properly denied; others raise triable issues. | Partial grant of summary judgment on some hurdles; remaining issues for trial on bad faith and punitive damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., In and For Maricopa County, 156 Ariz. 46, 749 P.2d 1367 (Ariz. 1988) (most significant relationship/tort choice guidance; injury location decisive in many torts)
- Pounders v. Enserch E & C, Inc., 232 Ariz. 352, 306 P.3d 9 (Ariz. 2013) ( Restatement § 145/6 factors; place of injury and conduct relevance)
- Lange v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1175, 1178-1179 (9th Cir. 1988) (application of Restatement § 6 factors to tort choice of law)
- Rowland v. Great States Ins. Co., 199 Ariz. 577, 20 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) (implied covenant standard for bad-faith; considerations of discovery)
- Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (Ariz. 1986) (evil-m mind standard for punitive damages in bad-faith cases)
- Deese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 504, 838 P.2d 1265 (Ariz. 1992) (bad-faith tort framework; implied covenant)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 38 P.3d 12 (Ariz. 2002) (choice-of-law considerations in tort contexts)
- Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 481 Mich. 399, 751 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. 2008) (no-fault-benefits and duty to explain; context for estoppel arguments)