Aetna Life Insurance Co v. Lavoie, No. 84-1601

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN
Citation475 U.S. 813,89 L.Ed.2d 823,106 S.Ct. 1580
PartiesAETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant v. Margaret W. LAVOIE and Roger J. Lavoie, Sr
Docket NumberNo. 84-1601
Decision Date22 April 1986

475 U.S. 813
106 S.Ct. 1580
89 L.Ed.2d 823
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant

v.

Margaret W. LAVOIE and Roger J. Lavoie, Sr.

No. 84-1601.
Argued Dec. 4, 1985.
Decided April 22, 1986.
Syllabus

When appellant insurer refused to pay the full amount of a hospital bill incurred by appellees, they brought suit in an Alabama state court, seeking both payment of the full amount and punitive damages for appellant's alleged bad-faith refusal to pay a valid claim. The jury awarded $3.5 million in punitive damages. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, 5 to 4, in a per curiam opinion written by Justice Embry. Appellant then filed an application for rehearing, and, before the application was acted on, learned that while the case was pending before the Alabama Supreme Court, Justice Embry had filed two actions in an Alabama court against insurance companies alleging bad-faith failure to pay claims and seeking punitive damages. One of the actions was a class action on behalf of all state employees insured under a group plan by Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Appellant then filed motions challenging, on due process grounds, Justice Embry's participation in the per curiam decision and his continued participation in considering the rehearing application, and also alleging that all justices on the court should recuse themselves because of their interests as potential class members in the Blue Cross suit. The court denied these motions, and also the rehearing application. Subsequently, the Blue Cross suit was settled, and Justice Embry received $30,000 under that settlement.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the question whether Justice Embry's participation in this case violated appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, where the Alabama Supreme Court's order denying the recusal motions clearly demonstrated that the court reached the merits of appellant's constitutional challenge, and where appellant raised this issue as soon as it discovered the facts relating to Justice Embry's personal lawsuits. Pp. 819-820.

2. Appellant's allegations, on a general basis, of Justice Embry's bias and prejudice against insurance companies that were dilatory in paying claims, were insufficient to establish any constitutional violation. Pp. 820-821.

3. The record, however, presents more than mere allegations of bias and prejudice, and supports the conclusion that Justice Embry's participation in this case violated appellant's due process rights. All of the issues in this case were present in his Blue Cross suit, and the very

Page 814

nature of that suit placed in issue whether he would have to establish that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the underlying claims that Blue Cross refused to pay before gaining punitive damages. Moreover, the affirmance in this case of the largest punitive damages award ever issued in Alabama on precisely the type of claim raised in the Blue Cross suit "raised the stakes" for Blue Cross in that suit to Justice Embry's benefit. Thus, his opinion for the Alabama Supreme Court had the clear and immediate effect of enhancing both the legal status and the settlement value of his own case. When he made the judgment in this case, he acted as "a judge in his own case." His interest in this case was " 'direct, personal, substantial, [and] pecuniary,' " Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60, 93 S.Ct. 80, 83, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972), as shown by the sum he received in settlement of the Blue Cross suit. Pp. 821-825.

4. There is no basis for concluding that the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court other than Justice Embry were disqualified under the Due Process Clause. While those justices might conceivably have had a slight pecuniary interest in this case because of their possible inclusion in the Blue Cross class action, that interest cannot properly be characterized as "direct, personal, substantial, [and] pecuniary." Any interest that they might have had when they passed on the rehearing application was highly speculative and contingent, since at that time the trial court in the Blue Cross suit had not even certified a class, let alone awarded any class relief of a pecuniary nature. Pp. 825-827.

5. Because of Justice Embry's leading role in the decision under review, the "appearance of justice" will best be served by vacating the decision and remanding for further proceedings. Pp. 827-828.

470 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1984), vacated and remanded.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 829. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 831. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Jack N. Goodman, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Page 815

Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court declined to recuse himself from participation in that court's consideration of this case.

I

This appeal arises out of litigation concerning an insurance policy issued by appellant covering appellees Margaret and Roger Lavoie. In January 1977, Mrs. Lavoie was examined by her physician, Dr. Douglas, because of various ailments. Shortly thereafter, on Dr. Douglas' recommendation, she was admitted to the Mobile Infirmary Hospital, where she remained for 23 days for a battery of tests.

After her discharge, the hospital forwarded the appropriate forms and medical records along with a bill for $3,028.25 to appellant's local office in Mobile, Alabama. The local office refused to pay the entire amount, tendering payment for only $1,650.22. The local office also sent a letter to the national office, concluding that the 23-day hospitalization was unnecessary and that "[h]ospital records do not indicate anything to the contrary," even though all the hospital records had not yet been received. At one point, the national office told the local office to continue denying the request for full payment, but added that "if they act like they are going to file suit," the file should be reviewed.

Page 816

Appellees filed suit against appellant, seeking both payment of the remainder of their original claim and punitive damages for the tort of bad-faith refusal to pay a valid claim. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action with respect to the bad faith counts. Appellees appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which remanded on the ground that it had "not foreclosed the possibility of recovery in tort for the bad faith refusal of an insurer to pay legitimate benefits due under an insurance policy." Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 374 So.2d 310, 312 (1979). On remand, the trial court entered judgment for appellees on the unpaid portion of their claim and granted summary judgment for appellant on the bad-faith claim. The Alabama Supreme Court again reversed, explaining that on that same day it had "recognized the intentional tort of bad faith in first party insurance actions." Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 405 So.2d 17, 18 (1981) (citing Chavers v. National Security Fire & Casualty Co., 405 So.2d 1 (1981)). On remand, appellees' bad-faith claim was submitted to a jury. The jury awarded $3.5 million in punitive damages. The trial judge denied appellant's motion for judgment n.o.v. or, alternatively, for remittitur.

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the award in a 5-to-4 decision. 470 So.2d 1060 (1984). An unsigned per curiam opinion expressed the view of five justices that the evidence demonstrated that appellant had acted in bad faith. The court interpreted its prior opinions as not requiring dismissal of a bad-faith-refusal-to-pay claim even where a directed verdict against the insurer on the underlying claim was impossible. The opinion also clarified the issue of whether a bad-faith suit could be maintained where the insurer had made a partial payment of the underlying claim. Although earlier opinions of the court had refused to allow bad-faith suits in such circumstances, partial payment was not dispositive of

Page 817

the bad-faith issue. The court also rejected appellant's argument that the punitive damages award was so excessive that it must be set aside.

Chief Justice Torbert, joined by Justice Beatty, dissented; Justice Maddox, joined by Justice Shores, also dissented, concluding that the case was controlled by the court's earlier decision in National Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 419 So.2d 1357 (1982), because there was an arguable reason for appellant's refusal to pay the claim.

The court's opinion was released on December 7, 1984; on December 21, 1984, appellant filed a timely application for rehearing. On February 14, 1985, before its application had been acted on, appellant learned that while the instant action was pending before the Alabama Supreme Court, Justice Embry, one of the five justices joining the per curiam opinion, had filed two actions in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, against insurance companies. Both of these actions alleged bad-faith failure to pay a claim. One suit arose out of Maryland Casualty Company's alleged failure to pay for the loss of a valuable mink coat; the other suit, which Justice Embry brought on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of all other Alabama state employees insured under a group plan by Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama (including, apparently, all justices of the Alabama Supreme Court), alleged a willful and intentional plan to withhold payment on valid claims. Both suits sought punitive damages.

On February 21, 1985, appellant filed two motions in the Alabama Supreme Court, challenging Justice Embry's participation in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
566 practice notes
  • Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, No. CV-08-420-B-W.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • 20 Mayo 2009
    ...true. . . .' Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972); see also Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 822, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986). Participation of adjudicators who `might conceivably have had a slight pecuniary interest,' how......
  • Williams v. Anderson, No. 04-3515.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 28 Agosto 2006
    ...before a judge whose "substantial" and "direct" interests may be furthered by the outcome of the trial. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 824, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986) (citations omitted) (disqualifying a judge who did not have a pecuniary interest in the outcome......
  • Keenan v. Bagley, CASE NO. 1:01 CV 2139
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • 24 Abril 2012
    ...extreme of cases would disqualification on the basis of bias and prejudice be constitutionally required." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 (1986). Courts ordinarily "presume that public officials have properly discharged their duties." Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909. The Sixth Circu......
  • Lujan v. City of Santa Fe, No. CIV. 13–0438 JB/SMV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 15 Agosto 2015
    ...in his state's lower courts. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. at 879, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986) ). The Supreme Court also pointed to Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
565 cases
  • Mallinckrodt LLC v. Littell, No. CV-08-420-B-W.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • 20 Mayo 2009
    ...true. . . .' Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972); see also Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 822, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986). Participation of adjudicators who `might conceivably have had a slight pecuniary interest,' how......
  • Williams v. Anderson, No. 04-3515.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 28 Agosto 2006
    ...before a judge whose "substantial" and "direct" interests may be furthered by the outcome of the trial. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 824, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986) (citations omitted) (disqualifying a judge who did not have a pecuniary interest in the outcome......
  • Keenan v. Bagley, CASE NO. 1:01 CV 2139
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • 24 Abril 2012
    ...extreme of cases would disqualification on the basis of bias and prejudice be constitutionally required." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 (1986). Courts ordinarily "presume that public officials have properly discharged their duties." Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909. The Sixth Circu......
  • Lujan v. City of Santa Fe, No. CIV. 13–0438 JB/SMV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 15 Agosto 2015
    ...in his state's lower courts. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. at 879, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986) ). The Supreme Court also pointed to Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • From hearing to Listening: Access to Justice and Indirect Displacement
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 110-1, October 2021
    • 1 Octubre 2021
    ...constitutionally tolerable.’” Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 877 (2009) (f‌irst quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 820 (1986); and then quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). The Court has held that there is impermissible bias when the same p......
  • A RESPONSIVE REMEDY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL REMOVAL RESTRICTIONS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 5, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-05 (1997) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975)). (166) See Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 822-25 (1986); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523-25 (1927). In each of these cases, the Court did not hesitate to invalidate the improperly co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT