Burnett v. PacificSource Health Plans

• Court: District Court, D. Montana
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Docket: 6:19-cv-00045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED 2/19/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District Court District of Montana Helena Division □ FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

DANIEL B. BURNETT and RHONDA BURNETT, No. CV 19-45-H-SEH Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER PACIFICSOURCE HEALTH PLANS, ADVANCED MEDICAL REVIEWS, LLC, and JOHN DOE, . Defendants. Pending before the Court is Defendant PacificSource Health Plans’ Motion

to Dismiss Common Law Tort Claim of Bad Faith! under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), by which Defendant contends Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, specifically Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(3), precludes Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.’ Plaintiffs respond that Montana law provides for breach of the implied covenant as a contract action.’ Plaintiffs

are correct.

' Doc. 47. ? See Doc. 48 at 7. 3 Doe. 49 at 5.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.””* A facially plausible complaint “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”” In considering the motion, a court “must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” However, a court is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.’ Under Montana law, “every contract, regardless of type, contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A breach of the covenant is a breach of the contract.”® In most cases, a breach of the implied covenant is “only a breach of the contract and only contract damages are due.”? “However, a claim may be brought for tortious breach of the implied covenant where a ‘special relationship’

* Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 5 Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). ° Fleming v Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004)). : 7 See Sprewell v. Golden St. Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987)). 8 Story v. City of Bozeman, 791 P.2d 767, 775-76 (Mont. 1990). 9 Story, 791 P.2d at 775.

exists between the parties.'”

Here, Plaintiffs assert “[t]he Amended Complaint alleges a special _

relationship contract and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in that contract.”'' Taking the allegations in the Amended Complaint” as true, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. ORDERED: Defendant PacificSource Health Plans’ Motion to Dismiss Common Law Tort Claim of Bad ah DENIED. DATED this /9 day of February, 2020.

gow Seddon) AM E. HADDON United States District Judge

'° Puryer v. HSBC Bank USA, 419 P.3d 105, § 23 (Mont. 2018) (citing Story, 791 P.2d at 776). " Doc. 49 at 3. " Doc. 45. '? Doc. 47.