Wilson v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 4-77 Civ. 351.,4-77 Civ. 351.
• Citation: 454 F. Supp. 1208
• Parties: May V. WILSON and National City Bank of Minneapolis as Conservator of the Estate of May V. Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

454 F. Supp. 1208

May V. WILSON and National City Bank of Minneapolis as Conservator of the Estate of May V. Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 4-77 Civ. 351.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

June 30, 1978.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas W. Wexler, Peterson, Engberg & Peterson, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.

Theodore N. Treat, Jr., Peterson, Holtze & Treat, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

ALSOP, District Judge.

On September 14, 1977, the plaintiffs commenced this action in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The complaint alleged that the defendant had breached a hospital indemnity insurance contract and claimed contract damages in the amount of $4,900.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00. On October 6, 1977, the defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in that state, removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. On December 21, 1977, the defendant filed its motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. On April 26, 1978, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. The proposed amended complaint is in four counts. Count I alleges breach of the hospital indemnity insurance contract and seeks contract damages in the amount of $4,900.00 and attorney's fees in the amount of $5,500.00. Counts II, III and IV purport to state claims of tortious interference with physician-patient relationship, interference with legal process, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of the plaintiff's right of privacy. The plaintiffs characterize those claims as independent torts which accompanied the defendant's breach of contract and seek punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00.

It is clear that leave to amend a complaint should be "freely given when justice so requires." Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. In order to permit the plaintiffs to bring before the court all of the claims which they wish to assert against the defendant, the court will grant the plaintiffs leave to file their amended complaint. In order to avoid further protracting these proceedings, the court will proceed to pass upon the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment as it relates to the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs characterize Count II as a claim alleging tortious "interference with what is in essence a contractual relationship between May Wilson and the medical personnel who treated her" and an "interference with legal process." The essential factual basis of these claims can be gleaned from the pleadings and from the affidavits on file. It is undisputed that the defendant issued a certificate of hospital indemnity insurance to the plaintiff May V. Wilson. It seems, and the court will assume for the purpose of this motion, that the insurance policy was in effect at all relevant times. The plaintiffs assert that subsequent to the policy's issuance the plaintiff May V. Wilson was hospitalized at the Hospital Del Socorro, Nogales, Senora, Mexico; that subsequent to her release from the hospital the plaintiff May V. Wilson filed a timely and proper claim for benefits allegedly due pursuant to the terms of the policy; that thereafter, during an investigation of the plaintiff May V. Wilson's claim, an agent of the defendant intimidated the doctor and other hospital personnel who treated the plaintiff May V. Wilson;¹ and that as a result of that intimidation the plaintiffs have encountered difficulty in obtaining medical records and other information which they seek in order to document their claim.²

The court is convinced that the facts and allegations underlying Count II fail to state a claim of tortious interference with the plaintiff's relationship with the physician and other medical personnel who treated her. Even if the law of Minnesota³ created such a cause of action,⁴ the plaintiffs would not state an actionable claim. In order to be entitled to relief on a claim of interference with the physician-patient relationship, the plaintiffs would be required to prove that medical services and treatment due to the plaintiff May V. Wilson had been wrongfully withheld or terminated and that the defendant had wrongfully caused the withholding or termination of those services. Hammonds v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 237 F.Supp. 96, 98 (N.D.Ohio, 1965) (applying Ohio law); see also Annot., "Liability in Tort for Interference with Attorney-Client or Physician-Patient Relationship," 26 A.L.R.3d 679, 704-06 (1969). It is clear that any wrongful activity on the part of the defendant necessarily began some time after the plaintiff had terminated her relationship with the Mexican physician and the other hospital personnel and had left their care. Because the physician-patient relationship had been terminated voluntarily at a time prior to all of the defendant's allegedly wrongful conduct, the defendant cannot be held liable for causing the relationship's termination.

Likewise, the court is convinced that the facts and allegations in support of Count II fail to state a claim of interference with legal process. First, the court is aware of no reported case nor any treatise which recognizes a cause of action sounding in tort denominated as interference with legal process. Cf. W. Prosser, Law of Torts §§ 119-121 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 653-682 (1977).⁵ Second, even if the law of Minnesota were to create such a cause of action,⁶ it seems clear that Count II fails to state a claim. The plain language of "interference with legal process" contemplates an intermeddling with or hampering of a presently pending legal proceeding. See, e. g., Findlay v. McAllister, 113 U.S. 104, 5 S.Ct. 401, 28 L.Ed. 930 (1885); Michalson v. All, 43 S.C. 459, 21 S.E. 323, 49 Am.St.R. 857 (1895). The facts here set forth demonstrate that all of the defendant's actions upon which the plaintiffs premise their claim of interference with legal process occurred at least seventeen and one-half months prior to the time at which the plaintiffs commenced legal proceedings. Therefore, there was no presently pending legal proceeding with which the defendant's allegedly wrongful actions might have interfered, and Count II fails to state a claim.

Likewise, even if Count II were to be construed as a claim that the defendant somehow caused the plaintiffs to delay their commencement of this action, it would still be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. It is true that Count II could be construed to allege that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiffs to delay their bringing an action to enforce their rights under the insurance policy. However, there is no allegation that the delay resulted in some right's being barred by the statute of limitations or that the insurance company had become insolvent and the value of the plaintiffs' claim against the company was thereby diminished. Mere delay without other injury is not actionable. Cf. 86 C.J.S. Torts § 44 (1954). Therefore, Count II fails to state a claim.

The plaintiffs characterize Count III as one alleging a "malicious bad faith settlement technique," i. e., "interference with a contractual right in the policy." The court is aware of no Minnesota statute or case which creates such a cause of action and concludes that the Minnesota Supreme Court would not recognize such a cause of action.⁷ Even if the court were to permit the plaintiffs to assert a claim of malicious bad faith settlement technique,⁸ the court would be of the opinion that the elements of such a tort would approximate those of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965); Fletcher v. Western Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 89 Cal.Rptr. 78 (1970) (elements of tort of intentional inflict of emotional distress include outrageous conduct by defendant and plaintiff's suffering severe emotional distress). The factual underpinning of the plaintiffs' claim of malicious bad faith settlement technique is that the defendant offered to settle the plaintiffs' contract claim by offering to pay a substantial portion of the amount sought on the condition that the plaintiff May V. Wilson surrender her policy. The defendant communicated the offer to the plaintiff May V. Wilson's attorney. The court is convinced that a settlement offer communicated to an attorney would not form a basis for concluding either that the defendant's conduct was outrageous or that the plaintiff May V. Wilson⁹ suffered severe emotional distress. Because there would be no basis for reaching such conclusions and because such conclusions would be essential elements of a well-founded claim of malicious bad faith settlement technique, the court concludes that that claim must be dismissed.

Moreover, if the court were to treat Count III as a claim that the defendant had acted in bad faith, it would be clear that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. The act of bad faith alleged is the defendant's failure to indemnify its insured under the policy. The defendant's failure to indemnify its insured would be a breach of contract, and a bad faith motive in breaching a contract does not convert a contract action into an action sounding in tort. Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 441-42, 234 N.W.2d 775, 789-90 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 902, 96 S.Ct. 1093, 47 L.Ed.2d 307 (1976); Independent Grocery Co. v. The Sun Ins. Co., 146 Minn. 214, 217, 178 N.W. 582, 583 (1920); accord, e. g., Vernon Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sharp, 264 Ind. 599, 349 N.E.2d 173 (1976) (applying Indiana law); MacDonald v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 276 So.2d 232 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1973) (applying Florida law); but see Ledingham v. Blue Cross Plan, 29 Ill.App.3d 339, 330 N.E.2d 540 (1975) (applying Illinois law); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Peterson, 91 Nev. 617, 540 P.2d 1070 (1975) ...