Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1836.,71-1836. |
| Citation | 452 F.2d 603 |
| Parties | ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert A. Guyer, of Burch, Cracchiolo, Levie, Guyer & Weyl, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
M. B. Moseley, of Andrews, Marenda & Moseley, P.A., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee.
Before MERRILL, BROWNING, and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Company appeals from the district court's dismissal of its diversity action against Dairyland Insurance Company. The district court determined that Rocky Mountain had failed to state a claim recognized by Arizona law. We affirm.
Hugh Tillery wrecked an automobile owned by Buck Cook. An injured passenger sued Tillery. Dairyland had insured the automobile, and was the primary carrier. Rocky Mountain had issued a policy to Tillery, and was liable for damages in excess of the ten thousand dollar limits of Cook's policy.
After a jury gave the injured passenger a $12,500 verdict, Dairyland moved for a new trial. The plaintiff offered to settle for $12,000. Rocky Mountain agreed to contribute $2,000 toward the $12,000 sum, but Dairyland refused to settle. The second trial ended with a jury award of $21,500. Dairyland paid to its $10,000 limit; Rocky Mountain paid the remaining $11,500.
Rocky Mountain then commenced this action against Dairyland, seeking damages on the theories that (1) Dairyland owed a duty of good faith to the excess insurer and breached that duty by refusing to offer to pay its policy limits in settlement, and (2) Rocky Mountain, as subrogee of Tillery's rights, can recover for Dairyland's alleged breach of its duty to Tillery to negotiate in good faith.
The opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court in Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance Co., 102 Ariz. 518, 433 P.2d 966 (1968), fairly read, rejects both contentions. A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is bound to follow the considered dicta as well as the holdings of state court decisions. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Anderson Construction Co., 260 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1958).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Farmers' Ins. Group
...Under. Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 102 Ariz. 518, 433 P.2d 966 (1967) which was followed in Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 9 Cir., 452 F.2d 603. We do not. The entire rationale of the Universal decision is found in the following quotation: "Without doubt......
-
Ileto v. Glock Inc.
...court decisions." Homedics v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 315 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 452 F.2d 603, 603-4 (9th Cir.1971)). ...
-
Indiana Voluntary Firemen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Pearson
...contradictory precedent, carefully considered dicta can have persuasive force. See, e.g., Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 452 F.2d 603, 603-04 (9th Cir.1971) (per curium) (holding that "a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is bound to follow the consid......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...8 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice 388, § 4913. Id. The Ninth Circuit referred to Universal in Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 452 F.2d 603 (9th Cir.1971), and read Universal as prohibiting a cause of action for equitable subrogation. The court recognized, however,......