Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Insurance
Citation: 104 F. App'x 642Docket: No. 03-16288
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 5, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Roger and Marcelee Matheson, along with their children, James and Jennifer, appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of Progressive Specialty Insurance Company. The appeals court affirms the district court's decision. The Mathesons' claims do not present genuine or material issues for summary judgment, as established in relevant case law. The court found no evidence of bad faith or a breach of the covenant of good faith, nor any damages from an alleged unfair practice during the settlement process. Additionally, there was no basis for punitive damages. The district court appropriately addressed all relevant issues and granted summary judgment accordingly. Allegations of fraudulent conduct were mentioned but not formally claimed, and the evidence did not substantiate these claims. The ruling disposes of all claims from both the parents and children, with the court agreeing that the children lacked standing, as previously determined by the district court. The disposition is not to be published or cited, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.