Twitter You Tube Facebook Autobodynews Linked In

Tuesday, 04 June 2019 20:22

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses and Remands OE Repairer Case

Written by

Index

On May 13, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal of shop owner Leif Hansen who sued GEICO for refusing to cover diagnostic scans on his 2017 GMC Sierra 3500 which received rear bumper damage during a crash.

Last year, the class-action case was thrown out with prejudice by U. S. Oregon District Court Chief Judge Michael Mosman.

 

Acting as a policyholder in this case, Hansen sued GEICO for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, GEICO successfully argued that a scan was not the actual damage to a vehicle covered under the insurance contract during last year’s hearing.

 

Hansen’s appeal was heard by Circuit Judges Norman Randy Smith, Paul Watford and Ryan Nelson who reversed and remanded the case.

 

They found “Hansen has not sufficiently pled that GEICO breached the terms of the policy … [and] Hansen has not properly pled damages … As a result of these two deficiencies, the district court did not err in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on the current pleadings. However, we have made clear that district courts commit reversible error by dismissing a suit without any chance to amend, even if no request has been made, unless the district court determines additional facts could not possibly cure the deficiency. Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 910 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim with prejudice and we remand to allow Hansen to amend,” according to the court’s memorandum on the appeal.

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the course’s dismissal of Hansen’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and dealing, citing Klamath Off-Project Water Users, Inc. v. PacifiCorp which decided “A party may violate its duty of good faith and fair dealing without also breaching the express provisions of a contract. The dispositive question, in this case, is whether it is appropriate to imply a duty … in order to effectuate the parties’ objectively reasonable expectations regarding the … agreement.”


Previous Page Next Page »

Read 3416 times