From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rocky Mountain Fire Cas. v. Dairyland Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 1972
452 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1972)

Summary

holding that " federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is bound to follow the considered dicta . . . of state court decisions"

Summary of this case from Indiana Voluntary Firemen's v. Pearson, (S.D.Ind. 1988)

Opinion

No. 71-1836.

December 7, 1971. Rehearing Denied January 18, 1972.

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

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.


Summaries of

Rocky Mountain Fire Cas. v. Dairyland Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 18, 1972
452 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1972)

holding that " federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is bound to follow the considered dicta . . . of state court decisions"

Summary of this case from Indiana Voluntary Firemen's v. Pearson, (S.D.Ind. 1988)

In Rocky Mountain Fire Casualty Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 452 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1971), the court held that Arizona law does not allow an excess carrier to recover as subrogee against the primary carrier.

Summary of this case from Certain Underwriters, Lloyd's v. Gen. Acc., (S.D.Ind. 1988)

construing Arizona law

Summary of this case from Ranger Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem
Case details for

Rocky Mountain Fire Cas. v. Dairyland Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 1972

Citations

452 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Homedics v. Valley Forge Insurance Company

Clearly, the language referring to direct patent infringement is dicta but Homedics offers no reasoned…

Young v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.

I readily acknowledge that even though the court's discussion of § 632.7 in Flanagan is probably best…