Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company et al
Filing
31
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
7
Case No. 15-cv-04834-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
10
Re: ECF Nos. 13, 16
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Intuitive”) brings this action for breach of contract and
12
13
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (“bad faith”) against defendant
14
Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”) and defendant Navigators Specialty
15
Insurance Company (“Navigators,” together with Illinois Union, the “Defendants”). Intuitive
16
alleges that Defendants failed to indemnify Intuitive for insured losses incurred in the defense and
17
settlement of certain products liability claims brought against Intuitive in connection with its da
18
Vinci® Surgical System product. ECF1 No. 1 ¶ 1.
Before the Court are Navigators’ and Illinois Union’s Motions to Dismiss the Complaint.
19
20
ECF Nos. 13, 16. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part
21
Navigators’ motion to dismiss, and deny Illinois Union’s motion to dismiss.
22
I.
23
BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2015, Intuitive filed this breach of contract action against Illinois Union
24
and Navigators in connection with two Illinois Union insurance policies (the “Illinois Union
25
Policies”) and one Navigators insurance policy (the “Navigators Policy”). Id. ¶¶ 2–3. The Illinois
26
27
28
1
Unless specified otherwise, all citations to ECF docket numbers refer to the ECF docket for the
instant case, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., No. 15-cv-4834-JST (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20,
2015) (the “breach of contract action”).
1
Union Polices provide Intuitive with $15 million in products liability insurance coverage, subject
2
to a $5 million limit for each occurrence and a $5 million aggregate self-insured retention for
3
claims made between March 1, 2013 through March 1, 2014 (the “Policy Period”). Id. ¶ 2. The
4
Navigators Policy provides Intuitive with $10 million in excess products liability insurance
5
coverage for claims made during the Policy Period. Id.¶ 3.
6
Intuitive alleges that it “has incurred Damages and Defense Costs . . . in connection with
7
products liability claims that are covered by the Illinois Union Policies and the Navigators Policy”
8
and that “[t]hese losses exceed both the self-insured retention in the Illinois Union Policies and the
9
limits of the Illinois Union Policies.” Id. ¶ 27. “Intuitive notified Illinois Union and Navigators of
the claims,” but “Illinois Union and Navigators have denied that they are obligated to indemnify
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Intuitive and have sought to rescind their respective policies.” Id. ¶¶ 29, 31.
12
Illinois Union sought to rescind the Illinois Union Policies by filing a claim for rescission
13
of the policies on October 21, 2013. In that action, Illinois Union asserted that Intuitive concealed
14
from it the existence of tolling agreements between Intuitive and claimants. Illinois Union
15
Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 13-cv-4863-JST, ECF No. 1 ¶ 27 (Oct. 21, 2013)
16
(“Illinois Union Rescission Action”). Illinois Union alleged that had it “known of the tolling
17
agreements and increasing number of claimants being added to the tolling agreements during the
18
application and underwriting process for [the Illinois Union Policies], [Illinois Union] would not
19
have quoted or agreed to issue [the Illinois Union Policies] or would have issued the policy on
20
materially different terms.” Id. ¶ 24.
21
Similarly, Navigators sought to rescind the Navigators Policy by filing a claim for
22
rescission of the policy on December 16, 2013. Navigators likewise asserted that Intuitive
23
concealed from it the existence of tolling agreements between Intuitive and claimants. Navigators
24
Specialty Insurance Co. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 13-cv-5801-JST, ECF No. 1 ¶ 28 (Dec. 16,
25
2013) (“Navigators Rescission Action”). Navigators alleged that had it “known during the
26
application and underwriting process for the [Navigators Policy] of the existence of [the tolling
27
agreements] and other information documenting the existence of undisclosed claims and
28
increasing number of claimants being added to the tolling agreements, [Navigators] never would
2
1
have issued the policy.” Id. ¶ 25.
On January 3, 2014, the Court related the Illinois Union and Navigators rescission actions.
2
3
Illinois Union Rescission Action, ECF No. 20. On April 23, 2014, the Court consolidated the
4
Illinois Union and Navigators rescission actions for all purposes other than trial. Illinois Union
5
Rescission Action, ECF No. 34. On October 29, 2015, the Court related Intuitive’s breach of
6
contract action to the rescission actions. ECF No. 6.
In addition to its breach of contract claim, Intuitive’s complaint in the instant action also
7
8
includes a bad faith claim, which is principally premised on its allegation that discovery in the
9
rescission actions “has confirmed that Illinois Union knew of the tolling agreements before it
issued the April 29, 2013 Illinois Union Policy and before it accepted Intuitive’s premium
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
payment.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 25.
On December 18, 2015, Navigators filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 13.
12
13
On December 21, 2015, Illinois Union filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 16.
14
The Court now considers these motions.
15
II.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Intuitive
16
17
and defendants are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
18
ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5–8.
19
III.
20
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
21
pleader is entitled to relief” to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
22
grounds upon which it rests.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
23
555 (2007). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
24
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
25
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
26
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
27
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The Court must “accept all factual allegations
28
in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
3
1
party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal can be based on the
2
lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal
3
theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533–34 (9th Cir. 1984). “The
4
tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals
5
of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
6
U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
7
IV.
Navigators moves the Court to dismiss Intuitive’s breach of contract and bad faith claims,
8
9
DISCUSSION
as well as Intuitive’s claim for punitive damages. Illinois Union does not move the Court to
dismiss Intuitive’s breach of contract claim, but does seek dismissal of Intuitive’s bad faith claim,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
as well as Intuitive’s request for punitive damages. The Court will first address Navigator’s
12
motion with respect to Intuitive’s breach of contract claim before addressing both parties’ motions
13
regarding bad faith and punitive damages.
14
A.
15
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract under California law2 are: “(1) the
Breach of Contract
16
existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3)
17
defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” Oasis W. Realty, LLC v.
18
Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821 (2011). Navigators argues that Intuitive has not sufficiently
19
pleaded a breach of the Navigators Policy because “(1) there are no allegations [in the Complaint]
20
that the underlying primary policy [i.e., the Illinois Union Policies] has been exhausted pursuant to
21
the provisions of the Navigators Policy, and (2) there are no allegations that Intuitive’s losses even
22
constitute covered or potentially covered claims under the Navigators Policy.” ECF No. 13 at 9.
23
The Court addresses both of these arguments in turn.
First, while “under California law, it is clear that [a]ll primary insurance must be exhausted
24
25
before liability attaches under a secondary policy,” Iolab Corp. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 15 F.3d
26
1500, 1504 (9th Cir. 1994), Intuitive has alleged that it has “incurred Damages and Defense Costs
27
2
28
The parties do not dispute that California law governs the underlying insurance policies. See
ECF No. 13 at 8; ECF No. 21 at 5–7.
4
1
[that] exceed both the self-insured retention in the Illinois Union Policies and the limits of the
2
Illinois Union Policies.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 27; see also id. ¶ 32 (“Intuitive’s total losses in connection
3
with the claims noticed under the Illinois Union Policies and the Navigators Policy exceed the
4
self-insured retention and the limits of the Illinois Union Policies.”). As a result, Intuitive has
5
alleged that the primary insurance policy at issue here, the Illinois Union Policies, has been
6
exhausted and that Navigators breached its contractual obligations to Intuitive “by failing to
7
indemnify and defend Intuitive as required by the terms of . . . the Navigators Policy.” Id. ¶ 33.
8
9
Navigators argues that Intuitive’s “alleging ‘incurred’ losses is a far cry from alleging that
the underlying limits have been exhausted by payment of covered judgment and settlements.”
ECF No. 28 at 3. According to Navigators, exhaustion under the Navigators Policy requires actual
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
“payment of judgments or settlements” by the insured or the primary insurer. ECF No. 13 at 6.
12
Because “incur” means “[t]o suffer or bring on oneself a liability or expense,” Navigators argues
13
that Intuitive’s use of “incur” in the Complaint “does not suggest that Intuitive paid those losses,
14
much less that such payments satisfied the exhaustion requirements of the Navigators Policy.”
15
ECF No. 28 at 3 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)) (emphasis in original).
16
This argument is unpersuasive. While the definition Intuitive attaches to its use of the
17
word “incur” might not be the one that appears in Black’s Law Dictionary, neither is it totally
18
outside the word’s accepted use, either generally or within the law. Because the Court must
19
“construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Knievel, 393 F.3d at
20
1072, the Court concludes that Intuitive has sufficiently pleaded that the Illinois Union Policies
21
have been exhausted and that Navigators’ refusal to indemnify thus constitutes a breach of
22
contract.
23
Second, Navigators argues that “Intuitive has failed to plead that its losses were covered or
24
even potentially covered under the primary and excess policies.” ECF No. 13 at 12–13. In
25
particular, Navigators argues that the Complaint does not allege whether “the loss [was] caused by
26
an occurrence that takes place in the coverage territory,” whether the loss and claims occurred
27
during the Policy Period, and whether the Illinois Union Policies applied to the loss, all of which
28
are required by the Navigators Policy. ECF No. 13 at 12. However, the Complaint alleges that
5
1
“Intuitive has incurred Damages and Defense Costs (as defined by the Illinois Union Policies and
2
Navigators Policy, and hereinafter ‘losses’) in connection with products liability claims that are
3
covered by the Illinois Union Policies and the Navigators Policy.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 27 (emphasis
4
added); see also id. ¶ 1 (“[Intuitive] brings this action for breach of contract and bad faith against
5
[Illinois Union and Navigators] based on their failure to indemnify Intuitive for insured losses
6
incurred in the defense and settlement of certain products liability claims brought against Intuitive
7
in connection with its da Vinci® Surgical System product.”) (emphasis added). Navigators cites
8
no authority for the proposition that greater specificity is required for an insured to survive a
9
motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the Court denies Navigators’ motion
10
to dismiss Intuitive’s breach of contract claim.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
B.
12
To establish a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Intuitive must
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (“Bad Faith”)
13
plead at least (1) that benefits due under the insurance policies have been withheld and (2) the
14
reason for withholding the benefits was “unreasonable.” Love v. Fire Ins. Exch., 221 Cal. App. 3d
15
1136, 1151 (1990). Both Illinois Union and Navigators argue that Intuitive’s bad faith claim
16
should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that defendants acted
17
unreasonably in denying coverage. ECF No. 13 at 13–14; ECF No. 16 at 11–12.
18
Contrary to Illinois Union’s argument, however, Intuitive’s complaint alleges that Illinois
19
Union “violated the Implied Covenant [of Good Faith and Fair Dealing] by wrongfully and
20
unreasonably delaying and denying coverage” because “Illinois Union knew of the tolling
21
agreements before it issued the April 29, 2013 Illinois Union Policy and before it accepted
22
Intuitive’s premium payment.” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25, 37. That is, the Complaint alleges that Illinois
23
Union had knowledge of the same tolling agreements that Illinois Union claimed were withheld
24
from it by Intuitive and which formed the basis of Illinois Union’s rescission action. See Illinois
25
Union Rescission Action, ECF No. 1 ¶ 27 (“Based on [Intuitive’s] concealment of the existence of
26
the tolling agreements . . ., [Illinois Union] is entitled to judicial rescission of the [Illinois Union
27
Policies].”). If Illinois Union knew of the tolling agreements prior to issuing the insurance
28
policies to Intuitive, then, according to Intuitive, it would be unreasonable for Illinois Union to
6
1
later use the existence of those very same tolling agreements to deny coverage and as a basis to
2
rescind Intuitive’s insurance coverage. ECF No. 23 at 7; see also Northland Cas. Co. v. Wescal
3
Yachts, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1028 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“California law allows defendants in an
4
action for rescission to file a counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant where there is no
5
valid ground for the [rescission].”). The Court concludes Intuitive’s allegations regarding Illinois
6
Union’s knowledge of the tolling agreements is sufficient to plead a claim for bad faith.
7
Accordingly, Illinois Union’s motion to dismiss Intuitive’s bad faith claim is denied.
8
But Intuitive makes no such allegation regarding Navigators’ knowledge of the tolling
agreements. See ECF No. 1 at ¶ 25. Instead, Intuitive argues “[t]he fact that the primary carrier,
10
Illinois Union, issued the policy with knowledge of the tolling agreements supports the inference
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
that Navigators, as the excess carrier on the same risk, did not have valid grounds for rescission
12
because the alleged omission of the tolling agreements from the insurance applications was not
13
material to underwriting.” ECF No. 21 at 9. While the Court must “construe the pleadings in the
14
light most favorable to [Intuitive],” Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1072, Intuitive has failed to allege any
15
facts regarding Navigators’ knowledge of the tolling agreements prior to its agreeing to the
16
Navigators Policy with Intuitive. The Court thus concludes that the Intuitive’s suggested
17
inference in unwarranted and will therefore grant Navigators’ motion to dismiss Intuitive’s bad
18
faith claim.
19
C.
20
“Punitive damages for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are available in
Punitive Damages
21
insurance cases because of the special relationship between the insurer and the insured.” Her v.
22
State Farm Ins. Co., 92 F. Supp. 3d 957, 976 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Jonathan Neil & Assocs.,
23
Inc. v. Jones, 33 Cal. 4th 917, 937 (2004)). California Civil Code section 3294(a) provides:
24
26
In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract,
where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the
plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for
the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
27
“However, ‘without a bad faith claim, there can be no punitive damages claim.’” Her, 92 F. Supp.
28
3d at 957 (quoting Helus v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of the U.S., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1185
25
7
1
(N.D. Cal. 2004)). Because the Court has already dismissed Intuitive’s bad faith claim against
2
Navigators, Intuitive’s claim for punitive damages against Navigators must also be dismissed.
As to Intuitive’s claim for punitive damages against Illinois Union, Illinois Union argues
3
4
that this claim should be dismissed because “Intuitive has failed to allege any facts demonstrating
5
the requisite intent.” ECF No. 13 at 15. Intuitive responds that “[t]he unreasonable delay or
6
denial of insurance benefits based on an unreasonable rescission claim can support an award of
7
punitive damages under California Civil Code Section 3294 because an insurer’s attempt to
8
rescind a policy without valid grounds amounts to a ‘conscious disregard’ for the policy holder’s
9
rights.” ECF No. 21 at 10 (citing Gentry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 726 F. Supp. 2d 1160,
10
1172 (E.D. Cal. 2010)).
While the parties disagree as to the correct standard applied at the pleading stage to
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
determine whether a plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a claim for punitive damages, the Court
13
need not resolve this issue because the Court determines that Intuitive has sufficiently pleaded a
14
claim for punitive damages under any of the proposed standards. To be liable for punitive
15
damages, California Civil Code section 3294(a) requires a defendant to have acted with
16
“oppression, fraud, or malice.” Bem v. Stryker, No. 15-cv-2485-MMC, 2015 WL 4573204, at *2
17
(N.D. Cal. July 29, 2015). “Malice” is defined as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to
18
cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a
19
willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).3
20
Here, Intuitive alleges that “Illinois Union knew of the tolling agreements before it issued the
21
April 29, 2013 Illinois Union Policy,” despite the fact that Illinois Union subsequently sought to
22
rescind this insurance policy “alleg[ing] that Intuitive failed to disclose in its applications for
23
insurance that it had entered tolling agreements with claimants . . . .” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24–25. The
24
alleged conduct—seeking judicial rescission of an insurance policy based on an insured’s alleged
25
26
27
28
3
“Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust
hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2). “Fraud” is
defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to
the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of
property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).
8
1
concealment of certain information despite the insurer’s having knowledge of the same
2
information prior to the issuance of the insurance policy—would constitute “despicable
3
conduct . . . carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of” Intuitive’s right
4
to recover under the Illinois Union Policies. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court
5
denies Illinois Union’s motion to dismiss Intuitive’s punitive damages claim.
CONCLUSION
6
7
For the reasons stated above, Illinois Union’s motion to dismiss Intuitive’s claims for bad
8
faith and punitive damages is denied. Navigators’ motion to dismiss Intuitive’s breach of contract
9
claim is likewise denied. Navigator’s motion to dismiss Intuitive’s bad faith and punitive damages
claims is granted with leave to amend. Should Intuitive intend to file an amended complaint,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Intuitive shall do so within 30 days of the date of this order.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2016
14
15
16
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?