Free Brief - District Court of California - California

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 204

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4

DAY LAW OFFICES MONTIE S. DAY (SBN 073327) Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1045 Shoshone, Idaho Telephone: (208) 280-3766 Attorneys for P. PAUL STORRER

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case is closed, judgment having been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (9TH Cir) 373 F.3d 998 .
_______ M EM O R AN D U M IN SU PPOR T O F R ELATED C ASE TR AN SFER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE PAUL REVERE LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a ) Massachusetts corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________) ) JOAN HANGARNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE PAUL REVERE LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a ) Massachusetts corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________)

P. PAUL STORRER,

Case No. C97-04014MJJ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSIDER CASE AS RELATED CASE AND TO REASSIGN CASE TO THE HONORABLE JAMES LARSON

Related Action: Case No. C99-5286JL* 1 Date: None Set .

1

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 204

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_______

INTRODUCTION The instant case of P. Paul Storrer v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Case No. C97-04014MJJ ("Storrer v. Paul Revere") , has been concluded with respect to the cause of action for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the case was appealed with respect to the District Court's ruling with respect to the issues of bad faith (breach of the covenants of good faith) and punitive damages. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and has remanded the case for further proceedings at the District Court on issues of bad faith (breach of the covenants of good faith) and punitive damages. With the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins departing the Federal Bench, this case must be reassigned, and considering that the legal issues and the factual issues are essentially the same as the case of Joan Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Case No. C99-5286JL which was tried by Judge James Larson, there is good reason for the transfer of the case to Judge James Larson for judicial efficiency.

ARGUMENTS After the Storrer v. Paul Revere case was filed, the case of Joan Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Case No. C99-5286JL ("Hangarter v. Paul Revere") was filed and proceeded to jury trial with Judge James Larson presiding. The case of

Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere were very, very similar both in fact and legal issues, and both involved the same defendant­The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. Not only did both cases involve the same defendant, but also were factually

similar in the following manner (not all inclusive): 1. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the same type of "disability insurance" policy marketed and sold by the defendant; 2. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the same illegal practices of the defendant in targeting high income professional policy holders in California and Florida in order to increase its profit margins; 3. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the systemic
M EM O R AN D U M IN SU PPOR T O F R ELATED C ASE TR AN SFER

-2-

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 204

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and malicious denial of legitimate claims as a matter of company policy in order to increase its profit margins. 4. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the corporate policy of denying claims in bad faith and without a proper and honest investigation of the claim in violation of California law. 5. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the disregard of the treating medical care professionals' evaluation in favor of selected "in house" professionals or professionals selected in an unfair or bias method to achieve the denial of the claim. 6. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the use of illegal techniques to achieve a company standard of a "termination ratio" in order to achieve the company's profitability forecast. 7. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve the taking of the determination of disability resulting from health issues from the hands of trained professionals and placing the decision in the hands of "claim adjustors" unqualified to make such determination who where then under pressure to terminate claims. 8. Both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere involve "claim

adjustors" who were not provided manuals or guidelines or properly trained as required by California law. The above list is not all inclusive by any means. For example, the claim adjustor in the case of Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere was the same, Mr. Kenneth Seaman, who obviously operated under the same guidelines in both cases. One can only assume that there was not a separate set of company policies and guidelines for each individual insured. The legal issues are also similar and/or identical, and the same legal principals apply to both Storrer v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere. For example, in both cases the defendant Paul Revere objected to the use of expert testimony on the standards of care and duties of an insurer to the insured. This issue was decided against Paul Revere by the
_______ M EM O R AN D U M IN SU PPOR T O F R ELATED C ASE TR AN SFER

-3-

Case 4:97-cv-04014-SBA

Document 204

Filed 02/21/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

District Court, and the District Court's decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Hangarter v. Paul Revere. Accordingly, this should be the "law of the case" as applied to the case of Storrer v. Paul Revere. Paul Revere is not entitled to "two bites at the same

apple". Other legal issues are similar, especially when applying the legal principals to the same defendant regarding the same insurance policy. Local Rule for the Northern District of California, Rule 3-12, provides that whenever a party knows or learns that an action may relate to another action concerning substantially the same parties, the same transactions or events and it appears to create an undue burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases were tried by different judgment, the motion for the Court to consider whether the cases should be related may be filed. This is exactly the instant motion. in the instant matter. Each of the factors is present

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, it is submitted that the instant case should be transferred to the Honorable Judge James Larson and considered related to the case of Joan Hangarter v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Case No. C99-5286JL. Not only is it judicially efficient, such may avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings as to the law involving the same legal and factual issue.

Date: February 21, 2008

DAY LAW OFFICES /s/ Montie S. Day BY:_____________________________ Montie S. Day, Attorney

_______ M EM O R AN D U M IN SU PPOR T O F R ELATED C ASE TR AN SFER

-4-