Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 In 2014, Boris Antl began planning a vacation to Chile. First Am. Compl. ¶ 16, ECF 

18 No. 5. He bought travel insurance from AGA Service Company, which does business as Allianz 

19 Global Assistance. Id. The policy included coverage for emergency medical care. Id. ¶¶ 18–22. 

20 Later, in a small Chilean village, Antl felt pain in his chest. Id. ¶ 25. He went to a clinic. Id. He 

21 was having a heart attack. Id. The clinic could not treat him, so he was taken first to a local 

22 hospital, then to a private hospital in a nearby city, where he was admitted to the intensive care 

23 unit. Id. ¶¶ 26–27. He called Allianz and asked it to fast track any necessary approvals, and he 

24 and the doctors repeatedly pleaded Allianz for payment; they would not operate without Allianz’s 

25 promise to pay. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. It took five days before Allianz’s approval arrived. Id. ¶ 30. The 

26 doctors then operated. See id. ¶ 32. Antl was eventually discharged, recovered, and returned 

27 home on Christmas Day in 2014. See id. 

Boris Antl, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AGA Service Company, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00504-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-00504-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 4
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Antl did not know it at the time, but the five-day delay permanently damaged his heart. 

See id. ¶¶ 31, 34, 36. He first learned this fact in late 2021, when a doctor advised him not to do 

many of the athletic things he had long enjoyed. Id. ¶ 35. He risked heart failure and death if he 

did. Id. The delay had probably also shortened his life. See id. ¶¶ 35, 37. This news caused him 

great stress, anxiety, and depression, and he has incurred and will incur costs treating the damage 

to his heart. Id. ¶¶ 37–38. 

A few months after learning Allianz’s delay had permanently damaged his heart, Antl 

filed this lawsuit. See Compl., ECF No. 1. He claims Allianz breached the insurance policy, First 

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 40–44, acted in bad faith, id. ¶¶ 45–56, falsely promised expeditious care, id.

¶¶ 57–64, wrongfully subjected him to emotional distress, id. ¶¶ 65–77, and violated California’s 

Unfair Competition Law, id. ¶¶ 78–82. He seeks damages, an injunction, attorneys’ fees, and 

other relief. See id. at 13. Allianz now moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See generally

Mot., ECF No. 6. The matter is fully briefed and was submitted after a motion hearing and 

scheduling conference on July 8, 2022. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 9; Reply, ECF No. 12; 

Mins., ECF No. 13. Rowennakete Barnes appeared for Antl, and Helen Luetto appeared for the 

defense.

Allianz primarily faults Antl for filing this case so many years after he returned from 

Chile. See Mot. at 6–12. It contends the statute of limitations has expired. For that argument to 

succeed at this early stage, “it must appear ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of 

facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.’” Rand v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins., 857 

F. App’x 343, 347 (9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 

68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995)). It is not necessary to detail the various statutes that place 

limits on the time Antl had to file this case. None of those limits began to tick away until late 

2021, and none is so short that it would have run out before this case began.

Ordinarily, the clock starts running when a claim is “complete with all its elements,” that 

is, when there has been some “wrongdoing or wrongful conduct, cause or causation, and harm or 

injury.” Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 397 (1999) (quotation marks and citations 

28 omitted). The “discovery rule” is an exception to this general rule. Id. Under the discovery rule, 

Case 2:22-cv-00504-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 4
3 

1 the clock does not start running until a person actually discovers or has reason to discover the 

2 potential claim. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 807 (2005). California 

3 courts “do not take a hypertechnical approach” to enforcing this rule. Id. They consider whether 

4 the person had “reason to at least suspect that a type of wrongdoing has injured them.” Id. 

5 Antl alleges his heart was damaged in 2014 because Allianz delayed necessary approvals. 

6 See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30–31. The generic “elements” of his claims were, as a result, 

7 “complete” in 2014. Norgart, 21 Cal. 4th at 397. But Antl also alleges that despite regular 

8 follow-up appointments with cardiologists, he did not learn about any permanent damage until 

9 late 2021. Id. ¶ 34. Nor did he know the cause of that damage before then. Id. It is plausible to 

10 infer that if Antl ultimately proves these allegations, he could rely on the discovery rule, and if so, 

11 this lawsuit would not have come too late. Allianz has not proven “beyond doubt” that Antl filed 

12 this lawsuit too late, so its motion is denied in this respect. Rand, 857 F. App’x at 347 (quoting 

13 Supermail, 68 F.3d at 1207). 

14 Allianz raises two further defenses specific to two of Antl’s claims. First, it argues Antl 

15 cannot move forward with his claim of false promises because he does not explain the 

16 circumstances of these false promises “with particularity,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

17 Procedure 9(b). See Mot. at 12–15. “Particularity,” as that word is used in Rule 9(b), means the 

18 complaint must explain the circumstances of the alleged fraud specifically enough to give the 

19 defendants “notice of the particular misconduct” so “they can defend against the charge and not 

20 just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 

21 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001)). A 

22 common gloss on this standard explains that a complaint must detail “the who, what, when, 

23 where, and how” of the alleged fraud. See, e.g., Vess v. Ciba–Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 

24 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997)). Antl’s 

25 complaint does not meet that standard. He alleges he relied on a promise to cover emergency 

26 care, but he does not say what was promised, when, and by whom. He refers only to the executed 

27 policy’s language. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16–23, 57–64. The policy, however, is the alleged 

28 result of the fraud, not its cause. This claim is dismissed. 

Case 2:22-cv-00504-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 4
4 

1 Second, Allianz argues the complaint does not explain why it is liable under the Unfair 

2 Competition Law. See Mot. at 15–17. Antl explains in opposition and confirmed at hearing that 

3 his unfair competition claim rests on the same foundation as his promissory fraud claim. See

4 Opp’n at 13. The court has dismissed the fraud claim, so the unfair competition claim is likewise 

5 dismissed. 

6 Antl could overcome the shortcomings in his fraud and unfair competition claims with 

7 additional allegations about what led him to buy insurance from Allianz. See, e.g., Cafasso, U.S. 

8 ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen a viable 

9 case may be pled, a district court should freely grant leave to amend.”). The motion to dismiss 

10 (ECF No. 6) is therefore granted in part. Claims four and eight are dismissed with leave to 

11 amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within twenty-one days. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

13 DATED: July 12, 2022. 

Case 2:22-cv-00504-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 4