From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Batazhan v. Allstate Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 15, 2007
256 F. App'x 904 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-35673.

Argued and Submitted September 28, 2007.

Filed November 15, 2007.

Robert E.L. Bonaparte, Esq., Shenker Bonaparte LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jerret E. Sale, Esq., Deborah L. Carstens, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC West lake Tower, Seattle, WA, Douglas F. Foley, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, Vancouver, WA, Jay R. Chock, Esq., Dunn Carney Allen, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00215-MWM.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Yan and Tamara Batazhan appeal the district court's denial of attorney fees under Or.Rev. Stat. § 742.061. The statute applies to insurers who have failed to reach prompt, fair settlements of insurance claims. See Dockins v. State Farm his. Co., 329 Or. 20, 985 P.2d 796, 801 (1999). In this case, Allstate paid the Batazhans' claim under their homeowner's insurance policy once the Batazhans complied with the provision of the policy requiring them to submit to examinations under oath during the insurance company's investigation. The district court correctly held that until the plaintiffs complied with the policy provisions, they were not entitled to payment of the claim.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Batazhan v. Allstate Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 15, 2007
256 F. App'x 904 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Batazhan v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Yan BATAZHAN; Tamara Batazhan, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. ALLSTATE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 15, 2007

Citations

256 F. App'x 904 (9th Cir. 2007)