Doble et al v. Mega Life and Health Insurance Company

Filing 195

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 145 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and setting status conference. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2010)

Doble et al v. Mega Life and Health Insurance Company

Doc. 195

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD W. DOBLE JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEGA LIFE & HEALTH INS. CO., Defendant. /

No. C 09-01611 CRB ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court recently granted Plaintiffs Richard and Rochelle Doble's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denied Defendant Mega Life & Health Insurance Company's Motion, finding that Mega breached its insurance contract with the Dobles when it denied coverage for Rochelle Doble's medical equipment. See dckt. no. 140. Language in the Court's Order apparently gave rise to Mega's second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, this time on the Dobles' cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See dckt. no. 145. Mega reasons that if the breach of contract claim was a "close question," as the Court found, then Mega cannot have acted in bad faith. Id. at 1. Mega's motion was based on the genuine dispute doctrine. See, e.g., Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (bad faith claim may be properly dismissed on summary judgment "if the defendant can show that there was a genuine dispute as to coverage"). //

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Having carefully considered the arguments in the parties' papers and at the motion hearing today, the Court DENIES Mega's Motion. "[A]n insurer is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law where, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a jury could conclude that the insurer acted unreasonably." Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co., 42 Cal. 4th 713, 724 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). The Court will consider at the close of Plaintiffs' case whether to submit Plaintiffs' bad faith claim to the jury. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). In addition, the Court notified the parties today that it was vacating the existing dates for the pretrial conference (November 2, 2010) and beginning of trial (November 15, 2010). The parties are INSTRUCTED to return to court for a further status conference on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., at which new dates for the pretrial conference and beginning of trial will be set. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2010

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2009\1611\Order re 2nd MPSJ.wpd

2