Mintz

Mintz v. Blue Cross of California

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 1594·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 595·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2009B207405California7,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Neill, J.

SUMMARY

The claims administrator under a health insurance plan denied coverage to a plan member for a treatment the administrator deemed investigational. The plan permitted the member to request an independent review of denial of coverage for an experimental or investigational therapy (as required by statute); the administrator advised the member of his general appeal rights, but not of his right to an independent review. The member sued the administrator (not the insurer), alleging causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with contract rights, reckless infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, among others. The trial court sustained the administrator’s demurrers to the member’s second amended complaint, and the member appealed.

We conclude that (1) the administrator, as the representative of a contracting party (the insurer), may not be held liable for the tort of interfering with its principal’s contract; and (2) the denial of health insurance benefits, without more, is not the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, (3) the administrator of a health care…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.