Biliack v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.
265 F. Supp. 3d 1003
D. Ariz.2017Background
- Plaintiff, an Arizona resident and anesthesiologist, held two disability policies issued by Paul Revere (now controlled by Unum) and submitted disability claims in 2015 that were ultimately denied after initial payments were stopped.
- Plaintiff alleges Unum-employed physicians Dr. Philbin and Dr. Benson conducted biased file reviews, misrepresented Arizona treating physicians’ records, and Philbin contacted Plaintiff’s Arizona treating doctors and urged a field visit in Arizona.
- Plaintiff sued Paul Revere and Unum for breach of contract and bad faith and sued Drs. Philbin and Benson individually for aiding and abetting insurance bad faith.
- Physician Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)) and, alternatively, for failure to state an aiding-and-abetting claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court evaluated specific personal jurisdiction under Ninth Circuit standards (purposeful direction/effects test) and assessed Rule 8(a)/Iqbal-Twombly plausibility for the aiding-and-abetting claim.
- The court denied dismissal: it found Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction based on intentional acts expressly aimed at Arizona (contacts with Arizona doctors and urging/arranging a field visit) and held the aiding-and-abetting claim pleaded the required elements under Arizona law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Drs. Philbin & Benson | Their reviews and communications were intentionally directed at an Arizona resident and caused foreseeable harm in Arizona | Physicians had no meaningful Arizona contacts beyond reviewing records remotely (Benson in TN, Philbin in MA); phone calls insufficient | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists — purposeful direction satisfied by targeting an Arizona resident, contacting Arizona doctors, and arranging field visit; exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Viability of aiding-and-abetting bad faith under Arizona law | Arizona recognizes aiding-and-abetting bad faith; complaints allege knowing assistance and separate tortious acts by physicians | Argue Arizona law does not recognize such a claim or, alternatively, plaintiff failed to allege separate tortious acts distinct from primary bad-faith acts | Court: Arizona recognizes such claims; plaintiff plausibly alleged (1) primary bad-faith tort, (2) physicians’ knowledge, and (3) substantial assistance via biased opinions and misrepresentations |
| Rule 8/Twombly-Iqbal sufficiency for aiding-and-abetting claim | Complaint pleads factual acts (biased reviews, misrepresentations, contacting treating doctors) sufficient to give fair notice and plausibly show liability | Allegations are conclusory and indistinguishable from the underlying bad-faith allegations; no separate tortious conduct alleged | Court: Allegations provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible aiding-and-abetting claim (separate tortious acts alleged) |
| Sealing motion and other procedural requests | Plaintiff sought leave to file certain documents under seal; also moved to strike objections | Physician Defendants did not oppose sealing; requested alternative relief moot after motion ruling | Court: Grant motion to seal (no opposition); deny motion to strike and alternative relief as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction)
- Doe v. Unocal, 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (Ninth Circuit precedent on jurisdictional showing standard)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (treat uneontroverted jurisdictional allegations as true and resolve factual conflicts for plaintiff)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (specific jurisdiction focuses on defendant’s relationship to the forum, not where plaintiff felt the injury)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (effects test for purposeful direction requires intentional act expressly aimed at the forum causing foreseeable harm)
- Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction in Ninth Circuit)
- Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (establishing the ‘but for’ connection for claims arising from forum-related activities)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (reasonableness/fair play and substantial justice factors for jurisdiction)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (notice pleading and plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 8’s notice-pleading purpose)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr. Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 38 P.3d 12 (Ariz. 2002) (elements for aiding-and-abetting requiring knowledge and substantial assistance)
- Temple v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (D. Ariz. 2014) (articulating Arizona elements for aiding-and-abetting claim)