Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9473395
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Willie Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
No. 9473395 · Decided February 8, 2024
No. 9473395·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 8, 2024
Citation
No. 9473395
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE THOMAS, No. 23-55225
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:21-cv-06296-MWF-MAR
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE MEMORANDUM*
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: OWENS, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Willie Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) on his breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract claims. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review the district court’s decision de novo. Goodman v. Staples Off. Superstore,
LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirm.
1. Thomas argues the district court erred by applying the “genuine dispute
doctrine” to his breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. We
disagree.
Under the genuine dispute doctrine, “a court can conclude as a matter of law
that an insurer’s denial of a claim is not unreasonable, so long as there existed a
genuine issue as to the insurer’s liability.” Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass’n
v. Associated Int’l Ins. Co., 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776, 784–85 (Ct. App. 2001)
(simplified). The California Supreme Court has concluded that California law “has
expressly permitted insurers to delay arbitration of uninsured motorist claims while
a workers’ compensation claim is pending” and that “the insurer is only liable for
the excess, if any, of the policy limit over the workers’ compensation benefits.”
Rangel v. Interinsurance Exch., 842 P.2d 82, 85, 91 (Cal. 1992). Rangel expressly
endorsed an insurer’s decision to delay paying out benefits under a policy until the
workers’ compensation claim was resolved. See id. at 92 (holding that insurer “was
not obligated to pay uninsured motorist benefits during the pendency of [the
insured’s] workers’ compensation claim” and thus the insurer “did not breach its
duty of good faith and fair dealing by delaying payment pending the outcome of the
2
workers’ compensation proceeding”).
Here, Nationwide acted reasonably in arguing that Thomas was required to
file a workers’ compensation claim before pursuing coverage under the policy. The
genuine dispute doctrine thus applies. See Chateau Chamberay, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d
at 784. Regardless of Thomas’s allegations that Nationwide failed to investigate his
claim, Nationwide paid the benefit as soon as “[t]he facts crucial to establishing the
loss payable—namely, the extent [of the workers’ compensation offset]—were fully
known by” Nationwide. Case v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Inc., 241 Cal. Rptr.
3d 458, 474 (Ct. App. 2018). Here, the workers’ compensation issue was not
resolved until the state court confirmed Thomas’s favorable arbitration award.
Nationwide paid Thomas $650,000 shortly after that. “Because [Nationwide]
resolved [Thomas’s] claim shortly after that determination, no triable issues exist
regarding bad faith.” Id.
2. Thomas contends that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment on his breach of contract claim. We agree with the district court that
Thomas received the full amount of benefits he was entitled to under Nationwide’s
policy. Thus, he suffered no damages and his breach of contract claim fails. See
Behnke v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 372, 391 (Ct. App. 2011)
(“[T]he undisputed material facts establish that Behnke has no viable claim for
breach of contract damages because State Farm paid all policy benefits Behnke was
3
entitled to receive.”).
AFFIRMED.
4
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2024 MOLLY C.
02NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE MEMORANDUM* COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
03Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 5, 2024** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
04Willie Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) on his breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Willie Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 8, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9473395 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.