United States Sixth Circuit

In an appeal arising from an action brought by an insured alleging breach of the insurance contract involving how defendant-insurer administers supplemental "cancer only" insurance policies that it has sold to individuals, insurer's petition for various forms of mandamus relief from district court's orders is denied and the decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated where: 1) the first three mandamus factors all cut strongly against issuing mandamus relief on the issue of policy interpretation; 2) the district court did nothing improper with respect to deferring ruling on defendant's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction requiring defendant to continue reimbursing plaintiff under its old method; 3) generalized mandamus orders directing district courts to go forth and manage discovery correctly will not be issued; and 4) district court's decision to issue plaintiff's motion for injunction enjoining defendant from proceeding with final settlement in a class action case in Arkansas is reversed and vacated as the district court has not certified a class, and it necessarily follows that the court has no cause to take extraordinary injunctive measures to protect the interests of a class.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/17/2009
• Published 12/17/2009

Judges

• Before:  MARTIN, BOGGS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Markham R. Leventhal, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, Florida, for Appellants.  Thomas O. Sinclair, Leitman Siegal Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Markham R. Leventhal, Julianna Thomas McCabe, Richard J. Ovelmen, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, Florida, Thomas H. Dundon, A. Scott Ross, Neal and Harwell, PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Thomas O. Sinclair, Miles Clayborn Williams, Leitman Siegal Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, Alabama, Eric L. Buchanan, Eric Buchanan & Associates, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee.