Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9515
| D. Or. | 2014Background
- Putative class action by Oregon residents against Bankers Life, Bankers’ parent CNOFG, and related entities over long-term health-care policies.
- Plaintiffs allege mishandling of claims, improper premium increases, and denial/delay of benefits; claims include elder abuse, breach of contract/implied covenant, fraud in inducement, and intentional misconduct.
- Plaintiffs seek direct and vicarious liability theories against CNOFG, including alter ego and agency theories.
- Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 due to complete diversity and amount in controversy.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, to strike class allegations, and to dismiss some or all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court’s rulings: strike class allegations; grant in part and deny in part on CNOFG personal-jurisdiction issues; dismiss elder abuse and intentional misconduct claims with prejudice; dismiss fraud claim premised on continuing-premium fraud with prejudice but allow fraud-in-the-entry theory to proceed; address standing and time-bar issues is partially reserved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over CNOFG | plaintiffs rely on CNOFG’s oversight and control to justify jurisdiction | CNOFG argues lack of sufficient contacts or alter ego/agency basis | jurisdiction exists for elder abuse/breach/intentional misconduct; fraud claim lacks personal jurisdiction via alter ego/agency; ordinary agency insufficient; alter ego theory fails on records |
| Class action viability and certification | plaintiffs seek to proceed as class alleging uniform claims | claims are not typical and common questions do not predominate | class allegations stricken; certification unlikely; individual analysis required for most claims |
| Elder abuse claim viability under Oregon law | elder-abuse theory supports financial abuse claims | delay/denial of benefits not “acquired from” the insured pre-1999; statute limitations issues | elder abuse claim dismissed with prejudice in full; pre-1999 conduct not actionable; post-1999 theory potentially cognizable but grounded on pre-1999 facts dismissed |
| Fraud in the inducement—entering policies vs. continuing premiums | fraud in inducing to purchase policies alleged with particularity | theory of fraud to continue paying premiums not pled with sufficient facts and not viable under Oregon law | fraud-in-the-inducement-to-enter claims survive in entry-theory; alleged continuation-premium theory dismissed with prejudice; leave to amend for entry theory may be granted if pursued |
| Intentional misconduct claim viability | claim premised on independent standard of care for insurers | Oregon does not recognize a separate duty of care for insurers under the asserted statute | intentional misconduct claim dismissed with prejudice; no independent tort duty shown |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum contacts and due process for jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (two forms of jurisdiction; minimum contacts and reasonableness test)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; corporate-structure considerations)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (express aiming and effects test for specific jurisdiction)
- Colder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (articulates express aiming in the 'effects' test for jurisdiction)
- Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (requires nexus between defendant’s forum-directed act and forum injury for jurisdiction)
- Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1986) (purposeful direction/intentional conduct satisfying effects test)
- Unocal Corp. v. Gillette, 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (imputing contacts through alter ego/agency concepts with limits)
- Georgetown Realty v. Home Ins. Co., 313 Or. 97 (Or. 1992) (insurance-defendant standard of care in excess/negligence context)