John Haldiman, Jr. v. Continental Casualty Co.
666 F. App'x 612
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Betty Lou Haldiman, through her personal representative, sued Continental Casualty Company seeking full policy benefits and related damages; case removed to federal court on diversity grounds and remand denial was not appealed.
- The policy’s 24-hour-a-day supervision requirement was previously defined by a class-action settlement; that settlement language was offered to govern interpretation of the policy.
- Haldiman asserted breach of contract, insurer bad faith, statutory unfair practices and fraud (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-443), and exploitation of a vulnerable adult (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 46-456).
- Continental moved to dismiss, for summary judgment, and to exclude Haldiman’s insurance expert; the district court granted Continental’s motions and denied Haldiman’s motions to remand and for partial summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the amount in controversy met jurisdictional threshold, contract interpretation under the settlement definition, sufficiency of bad-faith evidence (including excluded expert testimony), and adequacy of statutory pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy / remand | Remand appropriate; amount unclear | Amount met threshold including full policy, fees, punitive damages; diversity proper | Denial of remand affirmed; jurisdictional threshold met |
| Contract interpretation — 24-hour supervision | Haldiman says she qualifies for full-time benefits under policy | Continental says class-settlement definition governs and Haldiman does not meet it | Court enforces settlement definition; no genuine fact issue; summary judgment for Continental |
| Bad-faith claim | Continental acted unreasonably in claim handling | Continental acted reasonably; expert opinions were unreliable and excluded | Summary judgment for Continental; no bad faith shown |
| Statutory claims (Unfair Practices/Fraud; Exploitation) | Alleged misrepresentations and exploitation of vulnerable adult | Complaint lacks specificity for fraud/unfair practices and fails to plead a position of trust for exploitation claim | Dismissal affirmed for both statutory claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., 642 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2011) (remand posture and consideration of case posture at final judgment)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (attorney's fees included in amount in controversy)
- Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2005) (considering results from similar cases in amount-in-controversy analysis)
- Zilisch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 995 P.2d 276 (Ariz. 2000) (definition of bad-faith claim; insurer’s unreasonable conduct standard)
- Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) (expert opinion must be supported by sufficient facts to avoid summary judgment)
- Brook Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (expert opinions unsupported by facts may be disregarded on summary judgment)
- Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) (fraud/false representation pleading specificity requirements)