Jeffrey Green v. Allstate Ins. Co.
691 F. App'x 356
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Green sued Allstate for breach of an insurance contract after his home loss; the district court entered judgment for Green but limited certain recoveries.
- The Allstate policy included limits on damages and provided Additional Living Expenses (ALE) for reasonable increases in living costs during repair or replacement.
- Allstate paid the mortgagee (Wells Fargo) as loss payee; Green did not dispute that payment was proper.
- Green sought consequential damages, ALE for periods including time he was incarcerated, pre-judgment interest on the mortgage payment, and actual attorney’s fees and costs.
- The district court denied consequential damages, ALE for the incarceration period and beyond six months post-rebuild, pre-judgment interest on the Wells Fargo payment, and actual fees/costs (awarding fees under Alaska Civ. R. 82).
- Green appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions, for clear error factual findings, and for abuse of discretion fee rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consequential damages are recoverable | Green sought consequential damages for breach | Allstate argued the policy's damages limit and lack of bad faith bars consequential damages | Consequential damages denied: policy limits and no bad-faith claim; district court's causation finding not clearly erroneous |
| ALE for period of incarceration | Green argued ALE should cover his incarceration period | Allstate argued ALE requires actual increased living expenses which Green did not incur while jailed | ALE for incarceration denied: court found Green incurred no housing/living expenses while incarcerated |
| Length of ALE (beyond six months after rebuild) | Green sought ALE beyond six months | Allstate relied on policy language and related provisions requiring rebuild within six months | ALE limited to six months after rebuild: reasonable interpretation of policy and consistent term construction |
| Pre-judgment interest on Wells Fargo payment | Green sought interest on amount Allstate paid Wells Fargo | Allstate argued payment to loss payee was proper, so no wrongful denial to justify pre-judgment interest | Denied: pre-judgment interest only for wrongful denial; payment to Wells Fargo was proper |
| Actual attorney’s fees and costs vs. Rule 82 fees | Green sought actual fees and argued common-law indemnity exception applies | Allstate relied on policy limiting fees to Rule 82 schedule; insurance policies not within indemnity exception | Denied actual fees: policy governed; Rule 82 exclusive schedule applies; district court’s fee ruling not manifestly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Native Alaskan Reclamation & Pest Control, Inc. v. United Bank Alaska, 685 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1984) (recognizes consequential damages for contract breach absent limiting clause)
- Alaska Pacific Assurance Co. v. Collins, 794 P.2d 936 (Alaska 1990) (insurance policy damage limits preclude consequential damages where breach not in bad faith)
- United Services Automobile Ass’n v. Neary, 307 P.3d 907 (Alaska 2013) (insurers’ policy terms should be interpreted consistently)
- City & Borough of Juneau v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 598 P.2d 957 (Alaska 1979) (pre-judgment interest compensates for wrongful deprivation of funds)
- Koirala v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 126 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 1997) (appellate standard: clear error review of factual findings)