Richter

Richter v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

Good Law
286 F. App'x 427
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 2008No. 07-55272California349 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a class action alleging that Defendant-Appellee Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (“Mutual of Omaha”) breached their health insurance contracts, engaged in unfair competition, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by non-renewing coverage in May 2003, and then providing coverage to a Washington, D.C.-based volunteer organization with members in California only two years later. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Mutual of Omaha on all claims. We review the district court’s decision de novo, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

I.

Appellants claim that Mutual of Omaha breached their insurance contracts by prematurely reentering the California insurance market in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-42 (“Federal HIPAA”) and California Insurance Code §§ 10273.4 and 10273.6 (“California HIPAA”). We disagree. No rational trier of fact could find that Mutual of Omaha reentered the Cali *428 fornia market by issuing insurance to the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, and there is no evidence of any other reentry. Because Mutual of Omaha did…

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.