BATES v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY CNO (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Lorraine BATES; Charles Ehrman Bates; Eileen Burke; Jaci Evans, as Successor Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas Marier; and Dalla Francis, as Personal Representative for the Estate of George Alexander, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois insurance company; CNO Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35397

Decided: March 29, 2018

Before: CLIFTON, MURGUIA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Christopher L. Cauble, Attorney, Rachele R. Selvig, Attorney, Cauble, Cauble & Selvig, LLP, Grants Pass, OR, Michael L. Williams, Esquire, Williams Love, LLC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants John M. Aerni, Adam J. Kaiser, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY, Vicki L. Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, Jeffrey J. Amato, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Bankers Life and Casualty Company John M. Aerni, Adam J. Kaiser, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY, Vicki L. Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee CNO Financial Group, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

On February 24, 2017, we certified the following question of state law to the Oregon Supreme Court:

Does a plaintiff state a claim under Oregon Revised Statutes § 124.110(1)(b) for wrongful withholding of money or property where it is alleged that an insurance company has in bad faith delayed the processing of claims and refused to pay benefits owed under an insurance contract?

The Oregon Supreme Court answered our certified question on January 19, 2018. Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 362 Or. 337, 408 P.3d 1081, 1082–83 (2018) (“Allegations that an insurance company, in bad faith, delayed the processing of claims and refused to pay benefits owed to vulnerable persons under an insurance contract do not state a claim under ORS 124.110(1)(b) for wrongful withholding of ‘money or property.’ ”). In light of the Oregon Supreme Court’s answer, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ elder abuse claim under Oregon Revised Statutes § 124 et seq. was proper, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law