Mintz v. Blue Cross of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “the 15 agent’s immunity rule does not apply when the agents are acting as individuals for their individual 16 advantage.”
• holding that a claims administrator was not a stranger to an insurance plan for purposes of an interference claim asserted against it
• finding health care plan owes a duty to plan members 16 to exercise due care to protect them from physical injury caused by its negligence in making benefit 17 determinations under the plan
• conduct must be “so 22 extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible [bounds] of decency, and to be regarded as 23 atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”
• elements of a claim for negligence under California law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).