Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co.

8 Citing cases

  1. Midtown Hotel Grp. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.

    No. CV-22-01395-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. May. 23, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    As this Court noted in its order granting Midtown's motion for leave to amend, to state a claim for aiding and abetting under Arizona law a plaintiff must allege a separate act by the secondary tortfeasor which aids and abets an act by the primary tortfeasor. (See Doc. 40 at 7-8) (citing Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 12-1968-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 4759260, at *2-5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., No. CV-12-2302-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 840618, at *2-4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2013); Ortiz v. Zurich Ams. Ins. Co., No. CV-13-02097-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 1410433, at *3-6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2014)).

  2. Midtown Hotel Grp. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.

    No. CV-22-01395-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 2022)

    It is true that the Court has several times found Arizona law to require that, where the acts constituting an insurer's bad faith are performed by a claims adjuster, to properly state a claim for aiding and abetting a plaintiff must allege a separate act by the adjuster which aids and abets an act by the insurer. Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 12-1968-PHX, 2013 WL 4759260, at *2-5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013) (Finding that the alleged aider-and-abettor “could not have known about conduct that did not exist.”)

  3. Bussen v. N. Pointe Ins. Co.

    No. CV-20-00486-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 1, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    . . . Because Plaintiff alleges the same actions give rise to both the bad faith claim and the aiding and abetting claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against [Defendant]."); Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 12-1968-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 4759260, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013) (same); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. CV-12-2302-JAT, 2013 WL 840618,

  4. Centeno v. Am. Liberty Ins. Co.

    No. CV-18-01059-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Numerous cases in this District reinforce the determination that in order for Plaintiff's aiding and abetting claim against Defendants S&C and Kerner to survive, she must allege some action taken by these defendants separate and apart from the facts giving rise to the claim against ALIC. See, e.g., Swift v. Wesco Ins., No. CV-18-01531-PHX-JJT, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2018) (collecting cases); Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4759260, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., 2013 WL 840618, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2013). All of the facts alleged in this case may support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing by ALIC.

  5. Rosso v. Liberty Ins. Corp.

    No. CV-16-00860-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Jul. 27, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    In addition, "there must be some factual allegation showing [the secondary tortfeasor] took separate action in concert with the action giving rise to [the plaintiff's] claim against the [primary tortfeasor]." Id.; see also Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 12-1968-PHX-JAT, 2013 WL 4759260, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013). Rosso alleges Liberty Mutual committed bad faith by "refusing to properly investigate and effectively denying necessary medical care and other benefits, without any reasonable basis to do so."

  6. Lemaster v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest

    No. CV-13-02017-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Feb. 23, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Granting summary judgment in favor of adjuster on aiding and abetting claim where there was no evidence adjuster "performed separate actions that substantially assisted or encouraged" the alleged bad faith

    Id. However, even assuming that a third party administrator or adjuster may be liable for aiding and abetting a violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the plaintiff must still show the elements of a separate tort by the third-party administrator or adjuster against whom the claim of aiding and abetting is being alleged. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. CV-13-02097-JAT, 2014 WL 1410433, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2014) ("Because Plaintiff alleges the same actions give rise to both the bad faith claim and the aiding and abetting claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against [the third party administrator] or [the adjuster]."); Haney v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. CV-13-02429-DGC, 2014 WL 1230503, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2014); Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV-12-1968-JAT, 2013 WL 4759260, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. CV-12-2302-JAT, 2013 WL 840618, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2013). While Plaintiff alleges in the SAC that the Carrier Defendants have breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, committed violations of the Arizona Workers' Compensation Act, and violated other duties under Arizona law arising from their workers compensation coverage contracts, which could amount to tortious acts, Plaintiff does not allege any claims against Gallagher and Ms. Green other than aiding and abetting and punitive damages.

  7. Lambert v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    2:14-cv-00521-JWS (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2014)   Cited 8 times

    Haney, 2014 WL 1230503, at *4 (citing Wells Fargo Bank, 38 P.3d at 23) (emphasis added). See also Nieto, No. CV-14-01092-SRB, at 3 (holding that an adjuster can only aid and abet an insurer's bad faith denial of a claim if "the adjuster's actions were different from the actions underlying the insurer's bad faith."); Ortiz v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. CV-13-02097-JAT, 2014 WL 1410433, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2014) (Teilborg, J.) ("Because Plaintiff alleges the same actions give rise to both the bad faith claim and the aiding and abetting claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Sedgwick or Thompson."); Jones v. Colorado Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV-12-1968-JAT, 2013 WL 4759260, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013) (Teilborg, J.) ("Because Plaintiff's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is based entirely on Spratta's conduct—not Colorado Casualty's—Spratta could not have known that the primary tortfeasor's conduct constituted a breach of duty. Spratta could not have known about conduct that did not exist."); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., CV-12-2302-JAT, 2013 WL 840618, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2013) (Teilborg, J.) (same). Here, Stockett's only alleged action was her filing a Notice of Claim Status with the Arizona Industrial Commission without a reasonable basis and without first conducting an adequate investigation.

  8. Ortiz v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

    No. CV-13-02097-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Apr. 10, 2014)   Cited 10 times

    In order for Sedgwick and Thompson to have committed "tortious acts in concert" with Zurich, there must be some factual allegation showing Sedgwick and Thompson took separate action in concert with the action giving rise to Plaintiff's claim against Zurich. See Jones v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 4759260, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2013); Young v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., 2013 WL 840618, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2013). Because Plaintiff alleges the same actions give rise to both the bad faith claim and the aiding and abetting claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Sedgwick or Thompson.