Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8645520
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Sarkisyants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
No. 8645520 · Decided November 19, 2007
No. 8645520·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 19, 2007
Citation
No. 8645520
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of an insurance contract. “An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy.” 1 Sarkisyants did not attend a reasonably requested second examination under oath, despite numerous requests. State Farm fairly denied Sarkisyants’ claim after numerous requests and nine reminder letters in nine months. The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. An insurer may be liable for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it withholds policy benefits unreasonably or without proper cause. 2 State Farm acted reasonably with good cause. The district court properly denied Sarkisyants’ claim for punitive damages. To recover punitive damages, Sarkisyants must prove by clear and convincing evidence that State Farm is guilty of malice, fraud or oppression. 3 Sarkisyants asserts that State Farm denied his claim because of his nationality, but provides no evidence to support this allegation. Further, we do not take judicial notice of the State Bar of California disciplinary letter offered by Sarkisyants. Generally, we will not take notice of facts outside the district court record. 4 The disciplinary letter was not the result of a judicial proceeding, and therefore we have no reason here to make an exception to this general rule. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Brizuela v. Calfarm Ins. Co., 116 Cal. App.4th 578, 587 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 (2004). . California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 54 , 221 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1985). . Cal. Civ.Code § 3294(a). . United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, *54 248 (9th Cir.1992).
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of an insurance contract.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of an insurance contract.
02“An insured’s compliance with a policy requirement to submit to an examination under oath is a prerequisite to the right to receive benefits under the policy.” 1 Sarkisyants did not attend a reasonably requested second examination under oat
03State Farm fairly denied Sarkisyants’ claim after numerous requests and nine reminder letters in nine months.
04The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** The district court correctly ordered summary judgment in favor of State Farm in denying Sarkisyants’ claim for breach of an insurance contract.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Sarkisyants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 19, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8645520 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.