P. ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rubin
G059446
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 12, 2021Background
- Allstate filed a qui tam complaint alleging Dr. Sonny Rubin prepared false medical narrative reports and billing statements for lien patients to support insurance claims (causes of action: insurance fraud and unfair competition).
- Rubin treated lien patients referred by attorneys; patients signed medical liens authorizing attorneys to withhold payment from settlements and permitting submission of the provider’s reports and bills to attorneys/insurers.
- Rubin routinely prepared medical reports, operative reports, and billing statements and submitted them to Allstate; he moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute, claiming those documents were protected prelitigation petitioning activity.
- Allstate opposed with a claims investigator declaration documenting hundreds of claims submitted by Rubin and argued submissions made in the ordinary course of business (including false claims) are not protected; the trial court denied Rubin’s anti‑SLAPP motion.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed de novo, holding Rubin failed to show the reports/bills were prepared in anticipation of litigation that was "in good faith and under serious consideration," so the anti‑SLAPP motion failed at step one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allstate) | Defendant's Argument (Rubin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allstate’s insurance‑fraud/UCL claims arise from Rubin’s protected petitioning activity (prelitigation communications) | Submissions of claims/reports were routine business demands for payment and not protected; Rubin’s documents were not made in anticipation of litigation | Documents prepared/provided to patients’ attorneys are prelitigation petitioning activity protected by §425.16 because they were produced for use in personal‑injury litigation | Court affirmed denial of anti‑SLAPP: Rubin failed to show documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation that was "in good faith and under serious consideration," so claims do not arise from protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (prelitigation communications protected only when litigation is in good faith and under serious consideration)
- Mission Beverage Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC, 15 Cal.App.5th 686 (litigation is not "under serious consideration" if only a mere possibility)
- People ex rel. 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Building Permit Consultants, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 280 (submission of claims in ordinary course of business is not petitioning activity under anti‑SLAPP)
- People ex rel. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Anapol, 211 Cal.App.4th 809 (false insurance claims ordinarily not protected; protection requires litigation to be genuinely contemplated; subjective intent insufficient)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (anti‑SLAPP burden‑shifting framework explained)