Ribitzki v. American Family
1 CA-CV 15-0509
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Ribitzki held a homeowner’s policy with American Family covering personal property losses and requiring cooperation, document production, and submission to examination under oath (EUO).
- She claimed theft at a temporary residence (Nov 2010); American Family repeatedly requested records and an EUO to investigate discrepancies in the deed and claim.
- Ribitzki provided some documents but delayed others and did not reschedule or complete the EUO after initially leaving the session.
- American Family placed the claim inactive for noncompliance, issued reservation-of-rights notices, and stated it would reopen the claim if Ribitzki complied.
- Ribitzki sued (Dec 2013) for breach of contract, bad faith, and punitive damages; she did not respond to defendant’s summary judgment motion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for American Family (finding no genuine factual dispute), denied a new trial, and Ribitzki appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on breach of contract based on failure to cooperate (EUO) | Ribitzki contends factual disputes exist about cooperation and prejudice to American Family | American Family argues Ribitzki failed to comply with the policy EUO requirement, prejudicing its investigation; movant is entitled to judgment | Affirmed: undisputed record shows refusal to complete EUO; breach of cooperation clause bars recovery |
| Whether insurer committed bad faith by denying or mishandling the claim | Ribitzki argues insurer acted unreasonably/bad faith in handling claim | American Family says it reasonably investigated, placed claim inactive due to noncompliance, and never unreasonably denied the claim | Affirmed: no evidence of bad faith; insurer’s conduct was reasonable or at least fairly debatable |
| Whether summary judgment was improper without an evidentiary hearing (due process/default-judgment concern) | Ribitzki asserts Robinson requires an evidentiary hearing before adverse judgment | American Family responds Robinson relates to default judgments, not summary judgment on the merits | Affirmed: Robinson inapplicable; court reviewed the record and ruled on merits |
| Whether punitive damages could survive if underlying claims fail | Ribitzki seeks punitive damages tied to breach/bad faith | American Family argues punitive damages require underlying actual damages/recovery | Affirmed: punitive damages dismissed because underlying claims failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Awsienko v. Cohen, 227 Ariz. 256 (App. 2011) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Choisser v. State ex rel. Herman, 12 Ariz. App. 259 (1970) (unresponding nonmovant leaves movant’s uncontroverted evidence to be presumed true)
- Clark Equip. Co. v. Ariz. Proper. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 189 Ariz. 433 (App. 1997) (cooperation-clause breach is a defense if insurer is substantially prejudiced)
- Warrilow v. Super. Ct., 142 Ariz. 250 (App. 1984) (refusal to answer EUO questions can constitute breach barring recovery)
- Regal Homes, Inc. v. CNA Ins., 217 Ariz. 159 (App. 2007) (insurer not liable for bad faith when claim is fairly debatable)
- Picaso v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 217 Ariz. 178 (App. 2007) (appellate review focuses on correctness of judgment, not trial court reasoning)
- Robinson v. Higuera, 157 Ariz. 622 (App. 1988) (discusses default-judgment due process, not summary judgment)
- Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179 (App. 2001) (punitive damages require recovery of actual damages)