LORRAINE BATES V. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY CO, No. 14-35397 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 24, 2017.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LORRAINE BATES; CHARLES No. 14-35397 EHRMAN BATES; EILEEN BURKE; JACI EVANS, as Successor Personal D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00580-PK Representative for the Estate of Thomas Marier; and DALLA FRANCIS, as Personal Representative for the Estate of George MEMORANDUM* Alexander, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois insurance company; CNO FINANCIAL GROUP, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 4, 2016 Portland, Oregon Before: CLIFTON, MURGUIA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. On February 24, 2017, we certified the following question of state law to the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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., 408 P.3d 1081, 1082–83 (Or. 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
