Minkler

Minkler v. Safeco Insurance

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 200907-56689California1,235 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Statement of Facts and Procedural Background

This is a liability insurance coverage dispute involving a policy issued to a California homeowner. Scott Minkler appeals the district court’s order granting Safeco Insurance Company of America’s (“Safeco”) motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Minkler’s causes of action for breach of insurance contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, recovery as a judg- ment creditor pursuant to California Insurance Code Section 11580, and professional negligence. Minkler’s claims arise out of Safeco’s failure to provide a defense to Betty Schwartz, an insured under a Safeco homeowners insurance policy. Betty Schwartz was a resident of California at all relevant times.

In 2003, Minkler sued Betty Schwartz and her son, David, in California Superior Court. Minkler’s first amended com- plaint alleged David, Minkler’s little league coach, had sexu- ally molested him over a period of several years, beginning in 1987. Minkler asserted multiple causes of action against David, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emo- tional distress, negligence, and negligence per se. Minkler…

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.