Petersen v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
2012 WL 833034
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff Steve Petersen sues Allstate Indemnity Company alleging insurance promise to cover medical expenses up to $100,000 and underinsured motorist limits of $50,000.
- Allstate paid $11,092.69 for expenses from the accident but later denied further coverage after receiving bills totaling over $137,000.
- Allstate purportedly provided a reason that a treated procedure was for a condition not related to the motor vehicle accident and ceased payment.
- Plaintiff settled with the at-fault driver for $50,000 and later settled the underinsured motorist claim for the policy limits after arbitration concerns.
- Plaintiff filed the current federal case in September 2011; Allstate moved to dismiss three claims (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and 17200) under Rule 12(c).
- Court grants dismissal of the 17200 claim as unopposed and denies dismissal of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 9(b) applicability to negligent misrepresentation | Negligent misrepresentation should not be bound by Rule 9(b). | Rule 9(b) applies to both fraud and negligent misrepresentation. | Rule 9(b) does not apply to negligent misrepresentation. |
| Whether both fraud and negligent misrepresentation meet Rule 9(b) | Complaint pleads the circumstances of fraud with specificity. | Claims fail to meet Rule 9(b) requirements. | Both claims satisfy Rule 9(b) (alternative holding). |
| Whether defendant’s promissory fraud is pled sufficiently | Insurer promised coverage and intended not to perform. | No clear intent not to perform. | Sufficient facts allege promissory fraud by misrepresentation of intent to perform. |
| 17200 claim dismissal | Allstate should not have the 17200 claim dismissed. | 17200 claim should be dismissed and plaintiff does not oppose. | 17200 claim dismissed without prejudice as unopposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) fraud demands particularity; negligent misrepresentation not automatically covered)
- Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 9(b) may be relaxed for matters within opposing party’s knowledge)
- Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (Rule 9(b) protects professionals from slander; notices required)
- Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 9(b) notice requirements; pretext for discovery concerns)
- Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (District court applying Rule 9(b) to misrepresentation context criticized)