Opinion
No. 17-15340
06-22-2018
SHIVANI THAKKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a foreign corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Arizona and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a foreign insurance company and/or third party administrator authorized to do business and doing business in Arizona, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01446-JJT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 12, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: SILER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. --------
Shivani Thakkar appeals the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss her claim for tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Life Insurance Company of North America. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Even assuming that the salary continuation plan provided by Thakkar's employer is a contract or part of a contract, the tort of bad faith under Arizona law requires a "special relationship" between the parties, as well as a contract. Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 345, 355 (1991). In general, Arizona law does not recognize a special relationship between an employer and employee. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 385 (1985), superseded by statute on other grounds, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01, as recognized in Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 560 (2006); Nelson v. Phx. Resort Corp., 181 Ariz. 188, 197-98 (Ct. App. 1994). Although Arizona law recognizes a special relationship between an insurance company and an insured, Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 163 (1986), Arizona has not designated a salary continuation plan such as the one in this case as either an insurance contract or as workers' compensation insurance. This salary continuation plan has some similarities to workers' compensation insurance funded by an employer, see Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp., 222 Ariz. 139, 149 (Ct. App. 2009), but Arizona courts "have been reluctant . . . to extend the tort action beyond the insurance setting," Wagenseller, 147 Ariz. at 385, and we see no basis for inferring that Arizona courts would extend the tort to an employer's salary continuation plan. Given the lack of a special relationship between Thakkar and her employer, the district court did not err in dismissing her tort claim.
AFFIRMED.