Emma Mercado v. Allstate Insurance Company

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 9306·340 F.3d 824·2003 WL 21956194·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7426·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16802
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 18, 200302-55997California2,570 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

Emma Mercado appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to remand this insurance bad faith action to state court and the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company. Mercado argues the district court erred in concluding that (1) Silvia Luevano was a sham defendant included in the action to defeat federal jurisdiction; (2) Mercado’s bad faith claim against Allstate is foreclosed by Hamilton v. Maryland Cas. Co., 27 Cal.4th 718 , 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 318 , 41 P.3d 128 (2002); and (3) Allstate did not commit an unfair business practice by insisting that third parties be added as payees to a proposed settlement check, or by failing to increase a $15,000 policy liability limit by $1000 under the policy’s medical payments provision. Mercado also contends the district court should have permitted her to submit further evidence in opposition to All-state’s summary judgment motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

While crossing the street as a pedestrian, Emma Mercado was struck by a car driven by Brenda Brannon. Mercado filed a negligence action against Brannon in state court. Brannon’s insurer, Allstate,…

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.