Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01140/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

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 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nancy Sippe, wife; Joseph Lawrence Sippe, 

husband, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Travelex Insurance Services, Incorporated, 

a Delaware corporation; On Call 

International, LLC, a Delaware corporation; 

Stonebridge Casualty Insurance Company, 

an Ohio corporation; et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01140-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant On Call 

International’s Designations of Non-Party Tortfeasors or Alternatively, Motion for Leave 

To Amend Complaint and Vacate Existing Deadlines (Doc. 84). For the reasons set forth 

below the Motion to Strike is granted to the extent that the non-party designation of 

David Sippe is stricken. The balance of the Motion to Strike is denied. The Alternate 

Motion for Leave to Amend and to Vacate Existing Deadlines is granted in light of 

Defendants’ non-opposition to it. 

BACKGROUND 

 In this case, Plaintiffs sue three companies who were involved in an alleged joint 

venture to provide travel medical insurance. The initial Complaint alleges that after 

securing the travel policy, and while on vacation in Paros Island in Greece, Dr. Sippe 

slipped from his bunk and sustained a subdural hematoma. He began suffering 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

28 

hallucinations and engaging in combative behavior. Plaintiffs contacted Defendant On 

Call and Dr. Sippe was transferred to Athens Medical Center. Evaluations immediately 

provided to Defendant On Call from the physicians at Athens Medical Center attributed 

the seizure to a recent increase in Dr. Sippe’s medication. The Athens physicians were in 

contact with Dr. Sippe’s physicians in Phoenix and thus were aware that Dr. Sippe was 

being treated for his Parkinson’s Disease with a medication called Stalevo. The dosage 

of Stalevo was increased by his treating neurologist, Dr. Darry Johnson, just prior to his 

trip. The initial Complaint alleges that although the doctors in Athens diagnosed Dr. 

Sippe with a subdural hematoma, they did not believe that it required treatment and could 

not correctly diagnose the reason for his hallucinations and combativeness which they 

apparently incorrectly believed resulted from the Stalevo medication or from a separate 

condition. 

 The initial Complaint further alleges that during the care received in Athens, 

Plaintiffs were in consultation with Dr. Sippe’s neurologists in Phoenix including Dr. 

Johnson and Dr. Ralph Pagano “who recommended that Larry be returned home to the 

U.S. (Phoenix) immediately.” Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 17. Mrs. Sippe apparently sought from 

On Call Dr. Sippe’s early return to the United States, and the complaint alleges, On Call 

advised her that it would send a doctor to escort Dr. Sippe back to the United States, and 

that it had arranged for transportation on a commercial flight. On Call, however, 

according to the initial Complaint, failed to carry through on this promise, and further 

declined to provide such transportation for an additional week because On Call stated that 

Dr. Sippe’s Greek physicians recommended that he stay in Athens. During this time, Ms. 

Sippe, in association with David Sippe, Dr. Sippe’s son, independently hired 

supplemental nursing care to be provided to Dr. Sippe. 

 Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint further alleges that during this period of alleged delay, 

Dr. Sippe again fell out of his hospital bed on May 27, and thereafter remained 

unconscious until after his eventual surgery in Phoenix. Mrs. Sippe alleges that she and 

Dr. Sippe’s son had to arrange for his transportation on a commercial carrier and carry it 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

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 

28 

out on their own without any assistance from On Call. The initial Complaint further 

alleges that On Call refused to assist in the discharge of Dr. Sippe from Athens General 

which required the payment of his fees there. Upon his arrival in Phoenix, Dr. Sippe’s 

U.S. doctors determined that Dr. Sippe had a bleeding subdural hematoma that needed 

immediate brain surgery. As a result of these alleged delays in returning Dr. Sippe’s to 

the U.S., Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Sippe’s subdural hematoma was allowed to grow in 

size and, as a result, he suffered “severe and permanent brain injury that has affected him 

“cognitively, physically and emotionally.” 

 Based on the above factual allegations of delay in transportation, the initial 

Complaint sets forth five substantive counts—breach of contract, bad faith (tort), breach 

of fiduciary duty, negligence, and negligent or intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiffs 

filed this suit in Maricopa County Superior Court on April 30, 2013. Defendants 

removed the initial Complaint to this Court and On Call subsequently filed its initial 

answer on June 12, 2013. 

 Plaintiffs, within the time period allowed by this Court’s Case Management Order 

filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adds 

two claims to the claims set forth in the previous complaint: (1) In the event that any 

Defendant alleged that Travel Assistance and Concierge Services coverage was not 

included in the insurance coverage purchased by the Sippes, the Sippes added an 

alternative claim for statutory misrepresentation in connection with the sale of the travel 

insurance policy under A.R.S. § 20-443, and, (2), the Sippes added a claim for 

promissory estoppel that is based on the same factual allegations as the Plaintiffs’ claim 

for negligent or intentional misrepresentation. 

 Plaintiffs also revised the factual allegations of the initial Complaint in a subtle but 

important way. Paragraph 34 of the FAC subtly expands the theory of ¶ 34 of the initial 

Complaint. In the initial Complaint, ¶ 34 alleged that the delay in returning Dr. Sippe to 

the U.S. allowed Dr. Sippe’s subdural hematoma to grow in size resulting in injury. In 

¶ 34 of the FAC, however, Plaintiffs abandon any specification that the damage arose as a 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

28 

result of the growth of the subdural hematoma during the delay and instead allege that the 

delay prevented Dr. Sippe from receiving proper medical care and treatment for his 

medical conditions which led to and/or resulted in him sustaining injury. Similarly, in ¶ 

16, the initial Complaint stated that the Greek physicians diagnosed the subdural 

hematoma but recommended no treatment for it, and could not correctly diagnose the 

cause of the continuing symptoms. In the FAC, the amended paragraph more broadly 

alleges that the Greek hospital and physicians were unable to provide Dr. Sippe proper 

treatment for his medical condition. Plaintiffs have further revised ¶ 17 of their FAC to 

suggest that Drs. Pagano and Johnson informed Plaintiffs that Dr. Sippe needed to be 

returned home to receive proper medical care and treatment and On Call was or should 

have been aware of this advice. 

 Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint was filed on September 24, 2013. 

After considering the responses in opposition, the Court granted the motion to amend on 

November 22, 2013. Defendant On Call filed its Answer to the FAC on December 10, 

2013. On January 21, 2014, On Call filed its non-party at fault designations, 209 days 

after it had filed its initial answer and forty-two days after it filed its answer to the FAC. 

ANALYSIS

 The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure specify that: 

 

Any party who alleges . . . that a person or entity not currently 

or formerly named as a party was wholly or partially at fault 

in causing any personal injury . . . shall provide the identity 

location and the facts supporting the claimed liability of such 

nonparty . . . within one hundred fifty (150) days after the 

filing of the party’s answer. . . . The trier of fact shall not be 

permitted to allocate or apportion any percentage of fault to 

any nonparty whose identity is not disclosed . . . except upon 

written agreement of the parties or upon motion establishing 

good cause, reasonable diligence, and lack of unfair prejudice 

to other parties. 

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Because this 150 day limit is inextricably intertwined with 

Arizona substantive law, it applies in federal court. Wester v. Crown Controls Corp., 974 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

28 

F. Supp. 1284, 1288 (D. Ariz. 1996). 

 On Call does not assert that it has a written agreement with Plaintiffs allowing for 

later designation of non-parties at fault, nor did it file a motion with this Court asking 

permission to file such designations late and in which it established good cause, 

reasonable diligence and a lack of unfair prejudice to the other parties in the case. On 

Call’s principal response to the motion to strike is that its designations were timely. To 

the extent that On Call argues that the 150 day period recommences with every 

successive answer it files to an amended complaint, the Court has previously rejected that 

argument, and does so again. Monje v. Spin Master Inc., CV 09-1713-PHX-GMS, 2013 

WL 2390625 at *10-11 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2013), see also Daly v. Insurance Co. of 

America, CV 00-40-PXH-SRB, 2002 WL 1768887 at *17 (holding that “[Defendant] 

asserts that the 150 –day time period begins to run after the last-filed answer but cites no 

law to support this reading of Rule 26(b)(5). The text of Rule 26(b)(5) makes no 

suggestion that the 150 days should be counted from anything but the initial answer.”) 

 To the extent that an amended complaint raises new claims or facts so that 

reasonable Defendants would not have been previously aware of the existence of or need 

to name a non-party at fault until the amended complaint was filed, then the period in 

which to name a non-party would be extended, presumably by motion filed by the 

Defendant establishing good cause, to provide for a sufficient period in which to identify 

such non-parties. On Call has filed no such motion. Nevertheless to the extent that the 

parties have addressed such questions in the briefing on the motion to strike, the Court 

will assume that On Call has raised all such arguments that it has in its Response, and 

will not oblige it to refile a separate motion, although appropriate practice would have 

dictated it do so. 

 With respect to some of On Call’s designations, the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint provides sufficient reason to allow the late designations. With respect to 

others, it does not. The Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to 

recover for damages allegedly inflicted on Dr. Sippe, which resulted from Defendants 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

28 

delaying his return to the United States which allegedly was necessary for him to receive 

appropriate medical care. Thus, under the proposed Second Amended Complaint, the 

parties may dispute whether transport was appropriate, or whether any additional damage 

was caused Dr. Sippe due to the timing of his return to the United States. But, whether or 

not any health care provider committed medical malpractice, or whether the Defendants 

are vicariously liable for any such malpractice, is not at issue. Nevertheless, the proposed 

Second Amended Complaint complicates the issue because in it, Plaintiff has added 

assertions to allege that Dr. Sippe’s American physicians were not just of the view that he 

should immediately return home for treatment but, that Dr. Sippe could not receive 

“proper medical care,” for his condition in Greece. They further otherwise allege that On 

Call made its determinations about returning Dr. Sippe home under circumstances in 

which it was or should have been aware of their view that Dr. Sippe had to return home 

immediately to receive appropriate care. 

 To the extent that the difference in the pleading now suggests that Dr. Sippe was 

not receiving appropriate medical care and treatment in Greece, the Court allows the late 

designation as a non-party at fault, of Private Nurse Katrina and other nurses who were 

retained by the Plaintiffs in Greece to provide supplemental care. 

 The Court also allows the late designation of Dr. Pagano to the extent that in that 

designation they allege that “Dr. Pagano provided direction to the Greek neurologists 

regarding the medications Dr. Sippe required. To the extent that others are critical of the 

manner in which the Greek neurologists managed Dr. Sippe’s medications, their 

management was directed by Dr. Pagano.” The Court also allows the late designation of 

Dr. Pagano for the purpose of claiming that, to the extent that he had an opinion that Dr. 

Sippe could not receive adequate medical care in his situation in Greece, he was 

negligent in taking steps in light of that opinion. 

 Defendants also designate Dr. Johnson for the purpose of claiming that, to the 

extent the he had an opinion that Dr. Sippe could not receive adequate medical care in his 

situation in Greece, he was negligent in taking steps in light of that opinion. The Court 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

28 

will also allow the late designation on that topic. The Court is not sure how the allegation 

that Dr. Johnson prescribed the Stalevo in the first place, and may have injured Dr. Sippe 

by doing so, would constitute fault for the injury alleged in the proposed Second 

Amended Complaint that would need to be designated pursuant to the non-party at fault 

rules. “In assessing percentages of fault the trier of fact shall consider the fault of all 

persons who contributed to the alleged injury.” A.R.S. § 12-2506. The injury alleged in 

the proposed Second Amended Complaint appears to be the injury that arose as a result 

of On Call’s alleged failure to timely evacuate Dr. Sippe from Greece. Any injury that 

Dr. Johnson may have inflicted on Dr. Sippe, while possibly related to the extent that it 

may have caused the need for care to arise in Greece, may be separate and apart from any 

injury that Dr. Sippe received as a result of the transaction alleged in the proposed 

Second Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, Defendants do not object to the filing of the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint, which incorporates their entire designation as it 

pertains to Dr. Johnson. 

 The Court, however, strikes the late designation of David Sippe based on his 

independent efforts to transfer his father back home. Defendants have been aware of 

these facts and their possible relevance since the inception of this suit. Nothing about the 

Amended Complaint or any subsequent discovery justifies an extension in the deadline 

for naming non-parties at fault. The late designation of David Sippe as a non-party at 

fault is, therefore, stricken.1

 

 Although the Court would not otherwise permit any additional topics included in 

the late designation as it pertains to any of the three designations that the Court has 

permitted in part, the designations which the Court has allowed include the principal 

topics contained in those designations. Further, Defendants do not otherwise oppose the 

filing of the Second Amended Complaint proposed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, 

 

1

 To the extent that On Call continues to request a stay based on the Court’s striking of the designation of David Sippe as a non-party at fault so that it can appeal this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that request is denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

28 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike is granted in part and 

denied in part (Doc. 84). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 

and Vacate Existing Deadlines (Doc. 84) is granted. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their 

Second Amended Complaint on all parties within fourteen days of the date of this 

Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines in the Case Management Order 

(Doc. 36) are vacated. An Order setting a new Rule 16 Case Management Conference 

will follow. 

 Dated this 27th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01140-GMS Document 94 Filed 02/27/14 Page 8 of 8