Valentine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

CHRISTY VALENTINE,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

2:14-cv-0999-RCJ-NJK

vs.

ORDER

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

10
Defendant.
11
This case arises from Defendant State Farm’s alleged refusal to pay a claim submitted by

12
13

Plaintiff Christy Valentine, one of its insureds. Before the Court is State Farm’s Motion for

14

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 24) and State Farm filed

15

a Reply (ECF No. 27). For the reasons contained herein, the Motion is GRANTED.

16

I.

17

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff owned an automobile insurance policy

18

purchased from State Farm (“the Policy”). The Policy included Uninsured/Underinsured

19

Motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage. On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff was involved in an automobile

20

accident in Las Vegas, Nevada when a third-party struck the rear end of her vehicle (“the

21

Accident”). (Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1). The Accident caused only minor damages to Plaintiff’s

22

vehicle and in her initial report to State Farm she stated that no injuries were suffered. (Claim

23

Record, ECF No. 21, Ex. C, at 168). The other vehicle was a rental car that had been loaned by

24
1

1

the renter to the third-party driver, who was uninsured. (Id.). The party who rented the vehicle

2

was insured by Allstate.

3

On July 25, 2012, Plaintiff contacted State Farm and stated that she had begun feeling

4

back pain allegedly due to the Accident. (Id.). On August 2, 2012, State Farm Claims

5

Representative Debbie Bridgeman (“Bridgeman”) sent a letter to Plaintiff acknowledging her

6

claim under the UM/UIM coverage portion of the Policy and requested that Plaintiff sign a

7

“Medical Authorization for Release of Information” so that State Farm could investigate

8

Plaintiff’s medical claims. (Hooker Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 23). Bridgeman also included a “Medical

9

Provider List and Injury Questionnaire” so that Plaintiff could list her current and past medical

10
11

providers. (Id.).
On August 6, 2012, State Farm received a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel notifying it that

12

Plaintiff was represented in the potential UM/UIM claim and directing State Farm to send any

13

future correspondence to counsel. (Id. ¶ 8). Thereafter, on September 24, 2012, Bridgman sent a

14

letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting verification of the Allstate liability limits and the available

15

limits through the rental company. (Id. ¶ 9). When Bridgeman received no response, she sent

16

another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on December 11, 2012 inquiring whether Plaintiff would be

17

making a UM/UIM claim and against requesting verification of the liability limits for Allstate.

18

(Id. ¶ 10). Again, no response was forthcoming. On May 13, 2013, Bridgeman sent yet another

19

letter to Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring whether Plaintiff would be submitting a UM/UMI claim

20

based on the Accident and requesting that Plaintiff provide all medical records and bills

21

associated with the injury sustained during the Accident, along with the information Bridgeman

22

previously requested. (Id. ¶ 11).

23
24
2

1

Finally, on May 20, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a formal demand letter to State Farm

2

with an attachment indicating Allstate’s rejection of liability and listing Plaintiff’s medical

3

expenses in relation to the injury she allegedly sustained on July 23, 2010. The expenses listed

4

totaled $21,850. (Demand Letter, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. I). The letter also included notes from

5

Plaintiff’s doctor visit following the accident. The examination was characterized as a “follow-

6

up” visit and the doctor noted that Plaintiff’s lower back was “feeling better” with injections

7

“until [she] was struck” in a motor vehicle accident. (Medical Notes, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. J). The

8

doctor also “renewed” a number of medical prescriptions for Plaintiff. (Id.). The other piece of

9

medical history provided by Plaintiff’s counsel showed that Plaintiff suffered from degenerative

10
11

disc disease and lumbosacral. (Id.).
Based on this information, Bridgeman determined that Plaintiff obviously suffered from a

12

pre-existing condition that affected her lower back. (Injury Evaluation, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. K).

13

Accordingly, before State Farm could make any payments under the UM/UIM coverage, it

14

needed to determine what medical costs were attributable to the Plaintiff’s alleged injury from

15

the Accident and which expenses arose from Plaintiff’s pre-existing condition.

16

On June 1, 2013, Bridgeman completed a partial evaluation of Plaintiff’s UM/UMI claim

17

but sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requiring the additional information necessary to finalize the

18

evaluation. Bridgeman stated that it appeared “that Ms. [Valentine] [had] chronic back problems

19

and was treating just prior to this loss.” (June 1, 2013 Letter, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. L). Bridgeman

20

then requested Plaintiff’s five-year medical history and an opinion of apportionment pertaining

21

to Plaintiff’s lumbar and cervical areas from Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Jeremy Lipshutz.

22

(Id.). Bridgeman noted that, alternatively, Plaintiff could sign an enclosed medical authorization

23

form and State Farm would obtain the requested information from her doctors. (Id.).

24
3

1

When State Farm heard nothing from Plaintiff or her counsel, Bridgeman sent a letter on

2

July 8, 2013 to reiterate the need for the information requested in the June 1st letter and stating

3

that State Farm could not complete the UM/UIM evaluation without it. (July 8, 2013 Letter, ECF

4

No. 21-2, Ex. M). On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel provided denial letters from the adverse

5

insurance companies, including Allstate, and counsel indicated that Plaintiff’s prior medical

6

records had been requested. (July 19, 2013 Response, ECF No. 21-2, ECF No. N). On August 6,

7

2013, Bridgeman wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel, thanking him for the denial letters and again

8

requesting that Plaintiff’s medical history and that Dr. Lipshutz’s apportionment opinion be sent

9

to State Farm so the UM/UIM claim evaluation could be completed. (Aug. 6, 2013 Letter, ECF

10

No. 21-2, Ex. O).

11

On October 2, 2013, Bridgeman once again sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel with

12

enclosed copies of the June 1st letter, the July 8th letter, and the August 6th letter, requesting that

13

Plaintiff’s five-year medical history be provided. (Oct. 2, 2013 Letter, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. O).

14

Alternatively, Bridgeman asked that Plaintiff sign a medical authorization form and identify a list

15

of medical providers so that State Farm could pursue the information on its own. (Id.). In

16

response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent State Farm prior medical records from Plaintiff’s primary care

17

provider, Dr. Jennifer Leepard. (Hooker Decl. ¶ 20). The records revealed that Plaintiff had

18

sought treatment for serious lumbar spine conditions during the five years prior to the Accident.

19

(Id.; Medical Records, ECF No. 21-2, Ex. Q).

20

With this additional information, Bridgeman attempted to complete her evaluation of

21

Plaintiff’s UM/UMI claim, but she still needed to know how the various medical bills should be

22

apportioned between Plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and the injuries allegedly suffered in the

23

Accident. Since Plaintiff still had not provided an apportionment opinion, State Farm contacted

24
4

1

Dr. Joseph Schifini and requested that he provide an objective opinion regarding the

2

apportionment of Plaintiff’s injuries and treatment expenses. (Nov. 19, 2013 Letter, ECF No.

3

21-2, Ex. T). Dr. Schifini conducted an evaluation based on the medical records provided;

4

however, he requested a number of missing records from “Dr. Lipshutz, Dr. Jason Garber, and

5

Dr. Harb” as well as lumbar MRIs that were performed on Plaintiff during the five years

6

preceding the Accident but that were not included in the information sent to State Farm.

7

Bridgeman then made this same request to Plaintiff’s counsel on January 15, 2014 and indicated

8

that State Farm would secure the information if Plaintiff was inclined to sign the medical

9

authorization form. (Jan. 15, 2014 Letter, ECF No. 21-3, Ex. U). Bridgeman also invited

10

Plaintiff’s treating physician to respond to Dr. Schifini’s report if Plaintiff so wished. (Id.).

11

On February 11, 2014, Bridgeman sent yet another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel to follow

12

up the January 15th letter and again request the missing medical information and lumbar MRIs

13

so that apportionment could be determined and evaluation of Plaintiff’s UM/UIM claim

14

completed. (Feb. 11, 2014 Letter, ECF No. 21-3, Ex. V). The next day, Plaintiff’s counsel

15

returned the signed authorization form for the release of Plaintiff’s medical information, though a

16

list of medical providers was not included. (Feb. 12, 2014 Letter, ECF No. 21-3, Ex. W).

17

Plaintiff’s counsel also advised that he would contact State Farm in thirty days for a status update

18

on the UM/UIM claim evaluation.

19

However, on February 26, 2014, less than two weeks after sending the medical

20

authorization form, Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit against State Farm in state court claiming

21

breach of contract, bad faith, and unjust enrichment. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 25, 29). State Farm

22

removed the action to this Court. (Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 1). After engaging in discovery,

23

State Farm filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claims.

24
5

1
2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A principal purpose of the summary judgment rule is to “isolate and dispose of factually

3

unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). A

4

court grants summary judgment only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to

5

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

56(a). In making this determination, the court “must draw all reasonable inferences supported by

7

the evidence in favor of the non-moving party.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d

8

1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged

9

factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for

10

summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986). Rather,

11

only genuine issues of material facts are relevant to the summary judgment analysis. A fact is

12

material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. at 248. “The

13

moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material

14

fact.” Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2000). The burden is

15

met by demonstrating to the court “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving

16

party’s case.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. This is done by citing to depositions, documents,

17

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions,

18

interrogatory answers, or other materials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the initial burden is

19

met, however, “Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and identify

20

facts which show a genuine issue for trial.” Fairbank, 212 F.3d at 531.

21

Furthermore, summary judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a

22

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on

23

which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. “In such

24
6

1

a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof

2

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts

3

immaterial.” Id. at 322–23. Conversely, where reasonable minds could differ on the facts

4

proffered in support of a claim, summary judgment should not be granted. Petzak v. Nevada ex

5

rel. Dep’t of Corr., 579 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1333 (D. Nev. 2008). “Summary judgment is

6

inappropriate if reasonable jurors . . . could return a verdict in the nonmoving party’s favor.”

7

Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008).

8

III.

9

DISCUSSION
State Farm argues that summary judgment is appropriate in this case because Plaintiff

10

violated the terms of the Policy by failing to provide complete medical records or medical

11

authorization so that State Farm could fully investigate Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical condition

12

in order to determine what portion of her injuries were caused by the Accident. State Farm also

13

argues that Plaintiff violated the terms of the Policy by filing suit before complying with the

14

Policy’s conditions. State Farm maintains that these violations release it from any obligation

15

pertaining to Plaintiff’s UM/UIM claim. The Court agrees.

16

The UM/UIM portion of the Policy states in relevant part:

17

INSURED’S DUTIES
...

18
3. Insured’s Duty to Cooperate With Us
19
20
21

a. The insured must cooperate with us and, when asked, assist us in:
...
(2) securing and giving evidence;
...

22
6. Other Duties . . . Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage . . . .
23
A person making a claim under:
24
7

1
a. . . . Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage . . . must:
2

4

(1) notify us of the claim and give us all the details about the death, injury,
treatment, and other information that we may need as soon as reasonably possible
after the injured insured is first examined or treated for the injury.
...

5

(3) provide written authorization for us to obtain:

6

(a) medical bills;

7

(b) medical records; [and]
...

3

8
9
10
11
12
13

(d) any other information we deem necessary to substantiate the claim.
If the holder of the information refuses to provide it to us despite the
authorization, then at our request, the person making claim or his or her legal
representative must obtain the information and promptly provide it to us.
(Insurance Policy, ECF No. 22, at SF000034–35).
The Policy also prohibits the insured from bringing legal action against State Farm if the
insured fails to comply with the terms of the Policy:

14

GENERAL TERMS

15

13. Legal Action Against Us

16

Legal action may not be brought against, nor may arbitration be demanded of, us
until there has been full compliance with all the provisions of this policy. In
addition, legal action may only be brought against, or arbitration demanded of, us
regarding:
...

17
18
19

(c) Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage if the insured or that insured’s legal
representative:

20
(1) presents either an Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage claim to us; and
21
22
23

(2) files a lawsuit or demands nonbinding arbitration in accordance with the
Deciding Fault and Amount provision of the involved coverage.
Except as provided in c.(2) above, no other legal action may be brought against,
nor any arbitration be demanded of, us relation to Uninsured Motor Vehicle

24
8

1
2
3
4

Coverage for any other causes of action that arise out of or are related to these
coverages until there has been full compliance with the provisions titled Consent
to Settlement and Deciding Fault and Amount.
(Id. at SF000038).
Under Nevada law, “[a]n insurance policy is a contract that must be enforced according

5

to its terms to accomplish the intent of the parties.” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Neal, 64 P.3d 472, 473

6

(Nev. 2003). “If an insurance policy is unambiguous, [the court] interpret[s] it according to the

7

plain meaning of its terms.” Century Sur. Co. v. Casino W., Inc., 329 P.3d 614, 616 (Nev. 2014).

8

While the language of the policy is viewed from the perspective of one not trained in the law or

9

insurance, “[u]nambiguous provisions will not be rewritten.” Neal, 64 P.3d at 473. And “[w]hen

10

an insurance policy explicitly makes compliance with a term in the policy a condition precedent

11

to coverage, the insured has the burden of establishing that it complied with that term.” Las

12

Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t v. Coregis Ins. Co., 256 P.3d 958, 962 (Nev. 2011).

13

In this case, the undisputed facts make it clear that Plaintiff failed to fulfill her side of the

14

bargain. State Farm initially requested Plaintiff’s medical information pursuant to the Policy on

15

August 2, 2012 so that the coverage amount could be determined. Nine months later, and after

16

three more letters from Bridgeman, in May 2013 Plaintiff’s counsel finally provided a formal

17

demand for coverage under the Policy and certain medical records and bills. But the medical

18

records were limited to doctor visits that occurred after the Accident and they indicated that

19

Plaintiff suffers from chronic lower back problems. Understandably, then, State Farm sought

20

additional information to determine what injury, if any, was caused by the Accident and

21

therefore covered under the Policy.

22
23

Bridgeman first made a request for additional medical information on June 1, 2013.
Plaintiff did not answer. Bridgeman made another request on July 8, 2013. And while

24
9

1

Plaintiff’s counsel provided the denial letters from the adverse insurance companies, no medical

2

history was sent. Thus, Bridgeman made a third request on August 6, 2013. Plaintiff did not

3

answer. On October 2, 2013, Bridgeman made a fourth request for Plaintiff’s medical history

4

and an opinion from Dr. Lipshutz regarding the apportionment of Plaintiff’s injuries. At last,

5

Plaintiff responded by providing the medical records of her primary physician for the five years

6

preceding the Accident, approximately fourteen months after State Farm’s initial request.

7

Although these medical records made it clear to State Farm that Plaintiff’s lower back

8

condition pre-dated the Accident and was regularly treated before the Accident, the records

9

failed to give State Farm any idea of what portion of Plaintiff’s injury and submitted medical

10

bills should be attributed to the Accident. This is particularly true since Plaintiff ignored State

11

Farm’s request for Dr. Lipshutz’s opinion on the matter.

12

To ascertain some certainty as to what amount of Plaintiff’s medical bills should be

13

reimbursed, Bridgeman passed Plaintiff’s medical records to Dr. Schifini, who also could not

14

determine the degree of injury Plaintiff suffered from the Accident without additional medical

15

records. At that point, State Farm for a fifth time requested Plaintiff’s full medical records or

16

alternatively that Plaintiff sign the authorization form so that Bridgeman could pursue the

17

necessary information. Plaintiff did not answer.

18

A sixth letter was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the various medical records and

19

lumbar MRI to which Plaintiff finally responded with a signed authorization form, though she

20

omitted the names of medical providers from whom the information could be obtained. Shortly

21

thereafter, Plaintiff sued State Farm.

22

These facts clearly show a lack of cooperation on Plaintiff’s part. It is axiomatic that an

23

insurer must only provide payment on claims to which the insured is legally entitled. Pemberton

24
10

1

v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 858 P.2d 380, 384 (Nev. 1993). In cases where the plaintiff has a

2

pre-existing condition and then suffers injury to that same area, it is the plaintiff’s initial burden

3

to prove that the accident was a cause of the plaintiff’s claimed injury. Kleitz v. Raskin, 738 P.2d

4

508, 510 (Nev. 1987). If the insured is unwilling to assist the insurer in determining whether

5

particular injuries resulted from an accident covered by the insured’s policy rather than a

6

pre-existing condition, then certainly the insured has failed to cooperate. See Holland v. State

7

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:12-cv-01058-LDG-GWF, 2014 WL 1268712, at *5 (D. Nev.

8

Mar. 27, 2014) (George, J.) (denying coverage where insured refused to provide complete

9

information despite repeated requests by the insurer).

10

Plaintiff cannot expect State Farm to pay her medical bills without proving that at least

11

some of the cost stems from the Accident, especially when her lumbar issues are so well

12

documented and she was receiving extensive treatment prior to July 23, 2012. In fact, Plaintiff

13

acknowledges that she had the responsibility to “assist State Farm with its investigation and

14

provide all information necessary for them to determine the value of her claim before she [could]

15

file suit.” (Pl.’s Opp’n 8, ECF No. 24). Plaintiff argues, however, that she fulfilled this

16

requirement when she provided various medical records on May 20, 2013. As State Farm

17

conveyed to Plaintiff’s counsel multiple times, the records provided were unresponsive as to

18

apportionment, and the evaluation could not be completed without some evidence on that matter.

19

Furthermore, Plaintiff never explained to State Farm why Dr. Lipshutz or another of Plaintiff’s

20

treating physicians could not provide an apportionment opinion.

21

The Court also notes that State Farm never actually denied Plaintiff’s claim. Bridgeman

22

worked to complete the evaluation of the claim with the limited information available to her.

23

Once State Farm determined that the evaluation could not be finalized without an apportionment

24
11

1

opinion it sought Dr. Schifini’s assistance. However, when Dr. Schifini could not determine

2

proper apportionment, Bridgeman again requested that Plaintiff provide the additional medical

3

records. In what appears to be nothing more than a sham effort to comply with the terms of the

4

Policy, Plaintiff signed the medical authorization form on February 12, 2014 only to sue State

5

Farm a week and a half later.1 Indeed, Plaintiff’s lawsuit prevented State Farm from concluding

6

its investigation and determining whether to grant or deny coverage.

7

It is absurd to think that an insured who fails to provide her insurer with medical

8

information critical to a full and fair investigation of the insured’s claim should then be able to

9

sue the insurer for refusing to pay on that same claim. See Schwartz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

10

Co., No. 2:07-cv-00060-KJD-LRL, 2009 WL 2197370, at *7 (D. Nev. July 23, 2009) (Dawson,

11

J.) (finding that the insured’s “unjustified refusal” to submit to an independent medical exam

12

precluded her from recovering under the insurance policy). By ignoring State Farm’s numerous

13

requests for the information that would allow an apportionment of the injuries and treatments,

14

Plaintiff did not cooperate with State Farm and prevented a complete investigation of her claim.

15

The duty to cooperate is an unambiguous requirement under the terms of Plaintiff’s Policy, and

16

she breached it. Plaintiff is therefore precluded from maintaining suit against State Farm since

17

cooperation is a condition of her coverage and therefore a prerequisite to legal action. Las Vegas

18

Star Taxi, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 714 P.2d 562, 562–63 (Nev. 1986) (holding

19

that where a policy specifies that a particular condition of coverage must be met before the

20

insurance company is liable, such provisions are generally enforced).
The Court grants State Farm’s Motion.

21
22
23
24

1

Plaintiff argues that the Policy did not require her to provide both medical records and a signed medical
authorization form. (Pl.’s Opp’n 9, ECF No. 24). This argument is unpersuasive and unavailing. It is apparent from
the facts that State Farm was not requiring both. State Farm primarily requested that Plaintiff provide her complete
medical records for the five years prior to the Accident. When Plaintiff failed to comply, Bridgeman suggested that,
alternatively, Plaintiff could sign an authorization form so that State Farm could pursue the records on its own and
complete its investigation.

12

1
2
3
4

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 21) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: _______________________
April 27, 2015.

7
8

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13