Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ALORICA, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Alorica, Inc. argues that a letter from Express Scripts to Alorica dated September 25, 2018, constitutes a “claim” against Alorica under the terms of Alorica's insurance policy with Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company. The district court rejected that argument and granted summary judgment to Starr. We affirm.
In relevant part, the policy defines a “claim” as a “written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief.” Express Scripts’ letter does not fall within that definition. The letter rejects Alorica's demand for $4.8 million. A refusal to accept a demand is not itself a demand; it is only a refusal. Express Scripts’ letter does not ask Alorica to do anything at all. Quite the opposite: The letter declares Express Scripts’ unconditional willingness to “cooperate reasonably in any investigation” into the underlying computer fraud, and to pay Alorica $56,791, with no consideration from Alorica expected or requested.
Alorica characterizes Express Scripts’ refusal to pay as a request that Alorica forgive a debt, and argues that Express Scripts’ letter therefore constitutes a “demand for monetary relief.” But the letter could be characterized as a request to forgive a debt only if Express Scripts in fact owed a debt in the first place. Express Scripts denies that it owes Alorica $4.8 million, and indeed Alorica has made no further effort to collect this money.
In each of the cases on which Alorica relies, a “demand” or “claim” arose when someone asked the insured party for money or to work for free. See, e.g., Westrec Marina Mgmt., Inc. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 163 Cal.App.4th 1387, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264, 268 (2008) (“The attorney's request for compensation while threatening litigation was a ‘demand[.]’ ”); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Constr. Co., 136 Cal.App.3d 673, 186 Cal. Rptr. 513, 514 (1982) (“Sukut asked Malter to work without pay to correct the problem with the lien.”); Presidio Wealth Mgmt., LLC v. Columbia Cas. Co., 2014 WL 1341696, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014) (holding that investors’ “demand[ ] that Presidio return their funds ․ constituted a claim”). Alorica cites no case in which the refusal of another's demand, without more, has been held to constitute a demand. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Express Scripts’ letter was not a “claim” under the insurance policy with Starr.1
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. As we affirm based on the meaning of “claim,” we do not address the parties’ arguments regarding whether there was a “security failure” or Starr's alternative grounds for affirmance.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-55458
Decided: April 09, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)