Sonia Braun-Salinas v. American Family Ins. Group
665 F. App'x 576
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Insureds (Sonia Braun-Salinas, Guillermo Salinas, Ester Maeedo) sued American Family Insurance alleging negligence per se and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for failure to pay first‑party insurance benefits.
- District court granted summary judgment for American; Insureds appealed; Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- Insureds relied on ORS 746.230 as establishing the standard of care for a negligence per se claim and as supporting a bad‑faith/implied covenant claim.
- Oregon precedent rejects an independently actionable tort for failure to pay first‑party benefits under ORS 746.230 and declines to recognize a common‑law negligence claim in that context.
- Insureds did not timely seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) or otherwise notify the district court that pending discovery required delay of summary judgment on the implied‑covenant claim.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American; a concurring judge criticized the district court’s use of Rule 54(b) and §1292(b) without explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon recognizes negligence per se for insurer’s failure to pay under ORS 746.230 | Statute sets standard of care for common‑law negligence per se claim | Oregon law forecloses statutory or common‑law negligence claims for failure to pay first‑party benefits | No; negligence per se not available because no underlying negligence claim exists under Oregon law |
| Whether a common‑law negligence claim exists against insurer for failure to pay first‑party benefits | Insureds argue common‑law negligence can be pleaded using statute to define duty | Insurer argues Oregon courts have rejected common‑law negligence in this context absent a special fiduciary relationship | No; Oregon precedent declines to recognize common‑law negligence for first‑party benefit denials |
| Whether district court should have delayed summary judgment on implied covenant claim pending discovery/motion to compel | Insureds contend the court erred by ruling before resolving discovery motion | Insurer contends plaintiffs never invoked Rule 56(d) or timely alerted court to need for discovery | Affirmed; plaintiffs failed to timely seek Rule 56(d) relief, so no abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment |
| Whether entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) (and §1292(b)) was appropriate | Insureds implicitly challenge interlocutory posture by appealing | Insurer relied on finality of the order as appealable | Concurrence: district court erred in failing to state "no just reason for delay" and conflated Rule 54(b) with §1292(b); but panel treated judgment as final and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Heald Coll., 551 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing abuse of discretion when summary judgment entered despite pending discovery absent timely Rule 56(d) request)
- Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016) (Oregon requires an underlying negligence claim before negligence per se may proceed)
- Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Love It Ice Cream Co., 670 P.2d 160 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) (violation of ORS 746.230 does not give rise to tort action for bad faith)
- Strader v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 39 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (declining to recognize common‑law negligence for failure to pay first‑party benefits)
- Georgetown Realty, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 831 P.2d 7 (Or. 1992) (recognizes fiduciary‑like duties when insurer assumes defense and insured delegates judgment)
- Curtiss‑Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (Rule 54(b) disfavored piecemeal appeals)
- Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005) (considerations for Rule 54(b) and judicial administration)