Document: 475 U.S. 813 106 S.Ct. 1580 89 L.Ed.2d 823 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellantv.Margaret W. LAVOIE and Roger J. Lavoie, Sr. No. 84-1601. Argued Dec. 4, 1985. Decided April 22, 1986. Syllabus When appellant insurer refused to pay the full amount of a hospital bill incurred by appellees, they brought suit in an Alabama state court, seeking both payment punitive damages for appellant's alleged bad-faith refusal valid claim. The jury awarded $3.5 million damages. Supreme Court affirmed, 5 per curiam opinion written Justice Embry. Appellant then filed application rehearing, and, before was acted on, learned that while case pending Court, Embry had two actions court against insurance companies alleging failure claims One class action on behalf all employees insured under group plan Blue Cross-Blue Shield. motions challenging, due process grounds, Embry's participation decision his continued considering rehearing application, also justices should recuse themselves because their interests as potential members Cross suit. denied these motions, application. Subsequently, settled, received $30,000 settlement. Held: 1. This has jurisdiction over question whether this violated rights Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, where Court's order denying recusal clearly demonstrated reached merits constitutional challenge, raised issue soon it discovered facts relating personal lawsuits. Pp. 819-820. 2. Appellant's allegations, general basis, bias prejudice were dilatory paying claims, insufficient establish any violation. 820-821. 3. record, however, presents more than mere allegations prejudice, supports conclusion rights. All issues present suit, very nature placed he would have entitled directed verdict underlying gaining Moreover, affirmance largest award ever issued precisely type claim "raised stakes" benefit. Thus, clear immediate effect enhancing legal status settlement value own case. made judgment case, "a judge case." His interest " 'direct, personal, substantial, [and] pecuniary,' Ward v. Village Monroeville, 409 57, 60, 93 80, 83, 34 267 (1972), shown sum 821-825. 4. There is no basis concluding other disqualified Clause. While those might conceivably slight pecuniary possible inclusion action, cannot properly be characterized "direct, pecuniary." Any when passed highly speculative contingent, since at time trial not even certified class, let alone relief nature. 825-827. 5. Because leading role review, "appearance justice" will best served vacating remanding further proceedings. 827-828. 470 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1984), vacated remanded. BURGER, C.J., delivered which BRENNAN, WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. J., concurring opinion, post, p. 829. BLACKMUN, judgment, MARSHALL, joined, 831. STEVENS, took part consideration or Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C., appellant. Jack N. Goodman, appellees. Chief BURGER Court. 1 presented Amendment justice declined himself from court's 2 * appeal arises out litigation concerning policy covering appellees Margaret Lavoie. In January 1977, Mrs. Lavoie examined her physician, Dr. Douglas, various ailments. Shortly thereafter, Douglas' recommendation, she admitted Mobile Infirmary Hospital, remained 23 days battery tests. 3 After discharge, forwarded appropriate forms medical records along with $3,028.25 local office Mobile, Alabama. entire amount, tendering only $1,650.22. sent letter national office, 23-day hospitalization unnecessary "[h]ospital do indicate anything contrary," though yet been received. At one point, told continue request payment, but added "if act like are going file suit," reviewed. 4 Appellees appellant, remainder original tort dismissed cause respect bad faith counts. appealed remanded ground "not foreclosed possibility recovery legitimate benefits policy." Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 374 310, 312 (1979). On remand, entered unpaid portion granted summary again reversed, explaining same day "recognized intentional first party actions." 405 17, 18 (1981) (citing Chavers National Security Fire (1981)). appellees' submitted jury. motion n.o.v. or, alternatively, remittitur. affirmed 5-to-4 decision. (1984). An unsigned expressed view five evidence faith. interpreted its prior opinions requiring dismissal bad-faith-refusal-to-pay impossible. clarified could maintained partial Although earlier allow suits such circumstances, dispositive issue. rejected argument so excessive must set aside. 6 Torbert, joined Beatty, dissented; Maddox, Shores, dissented, controlled Savings Ins. Co. Dutton, 419 1357 (1982), there arguable reason 7 released December 7, 1984; 21, 1984, timely rehearing. February 14, 1985, instant Embry, joining Circuit Jefferson County, Alabama, companies. Both arose Maryland Company's loss valuable mink coat; representative Shield (including, apparently, Court), willful withhold claims. sought 8 challenging Cross. March 8, unanimously motions. brief stated each voted individually matter so. time, division, 9 Torbert wrote separately, although views influenced membership putative Cross, nonetheless notifying Clerk permit him included class. Maddox taking similar action. 10 20, obtained copy transcript deposition, taken 10, connection deposition revealed authored 8- 9-month period during civil being prosecuted. that, period, "leads" people regard put them touch attorney. Finally, frustration For example, asked if difficulty processing retorted: "[T]hat silly question. years years." 11 moved leave second based denied. Justice, stay below disposition appeal. settled stipulation parties.1 stipulation, recognized "some problems occurred past determined minimize future." agreement basic compensatory unspecified amount; check deposited attorney directly into account. 12 We postponed merits. 471 1134, 105 2672, 86 691 (1985). now vacate remand. II 13 satisfied argue did reach after reject contention odds record. following order: 14 "Upon consideration, allegation said vote recuse. Each having recuse, 15 "IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED 'Motion Disqualification Motion Withdrawal Opinion Hearing De Novo' . denied." App. Juris. Statement 64a. 16 demonstrates albeit justice-by-justice basis. we conclude proper. See Ulster County Allen, 442 140, 147-154, 99 2213, 2219-2223, 60 777 (1979); 61, (1972). III A. 17 contends hostility towards requires "[a]ll questions judicial qualification involve validity. Thus matters kinship, bias, policy, remoteness interest, seem generally merely legislative discretion." Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 523, 47 437, 441, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); see FTC Cement Institute, 333 683, 702, 68 793, 804, 92 1010 (1948) ("[M]ost disqualification [do] rise level"). traditional common-law rule permitted. See, e.g., Clyma Kennedy, 64 Conn. 29 539 (1894). Frank, Judges, 56 Yale L.J. 605 (1947). As blackstone it, "the law suppose favour judge, who already sworn administer impartial justice, whose authority greatly depends upon presumption idea." Blackstone, Commentaries *361. recent trend adoption statutes prejudice. Berger United States, 255 31, 41 230, 232, 65 481 (1921) (enforcing statute disqualifying federal judges certain circumstances prejudice). ABA Code Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(1)(a) (1980) ("A disqualify party"). But sufficient imposing requirement held Patterson New York, 432 197, 201-202, 97 2319, 2322-2323, 53 281 (1977) (citations omitted), "it normally within power State regulate procedures laws carried subject proscription unless offends some principle rooted traditions conscience our ranked fundamental." 19 need decide here force recusal. Certainly most extreme cases constitutionally required, arguments fall well level. suggests reveals likely many claimants developed hostile feelings awaiting Insurers, side, easy task, especially trying evaluate diagnostic tests prolonged indicated. turn, physicians surgeons, impelled apprehension future malpractice claims—or combination two—similarly face difficult problems. B 20 record however. presses direct stake outcome Tumey, recognizing Constitution does every qualification, concluded certainly violates [a person's] liberty property direct, reaching U.S., S.Ct., 441. 21 More 30 ago Black, speaking "can [or be] permitted try outcome." re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 942 (1955). He went acknowledge what degree kind sitting "cannot defined precision." Ibid. Nonetheless, reasonable formulation 22 "situation 'which offer temptation average lead hold balance nice, true.' supra, 83. Under holdings, examine just factors constitute bear cast deciding least lawsuit another court. decisions sat,2 binding courts. blind ourselves fact area jurisdictions, unsettled close division indicates. vote, apply well-established quite possibly new law; suggest compelled decisions. Instead, necessary review considerations, elements, instructive guide posts law." So.2d, 1070. And acknowledged embryonic stage, occasion address arise cases." 1362. 24 firmly established situation insured's fully approved made. Prior tortious injury circumstances; moreover, affirmatively good insurer. Sexton Liberty 18, (1981). lie claim, thrust holding. Cf. aside million. previously $100,000, figure remitted $1.1 "obviously result passion jury." Gulf Atlantic Barnes, 916, 926 25 complaint Also (by substantial margin) undoubtedly benefit 26 characterize change clarification contours law, obviously called make. simply 625. 27 pecuniary.' Ward, 83 (quoting 441). "compensatory damage breach contract, inconvenience, emotional mental distress, disappointment, pain suffering" addition Soon announced, paid interview tidy sum," Reply Brief n. settle Records lodged show $30,000, To sure, money may gone materials us agreed waive fee. Deposition Grey Till Clay Nationwide Insurance CV-78-1148 (Cir.Ct. Cty., Ala.), pp. 27-29. aware statement "[t]he primary object institution emphasize defendant Plan processed efficient manner," specifically monetary was. "tidy sum" substantiality here. 28 explicated Ward. make required influenced, 'would 532, 444). "may sometimes bar actual weigh scales equally between contending parties. perform high function way, 'justice satisfy appearance justice.' 625 (citation omitted). C challenged six withdraw claiming Such Constitution. place, accepting expansive contentions require State. If so, "rule necessity" none disqualified. States Will, 449 200, 214, 101 471, 480, 66 392 (1980). important, interest,3 find impossible concedes nothing knowledge deny plausibly affected. contingent. With proliferation involving broadly classes, carefully limited. Otherwise quickly become standard feature class-action litigation. rE city oF houston, 745 F.2d 925 (CA5 1984). biasing influence [will too remote insubstantial violate constraints." Marshall Jerrico, Inc., 446 238, 243, 100 1610, 1614, 182 Charges lightly. Rooker Fidelity Trust 263 413, 44 149, 362 (1923). D 31 Having turn proper remedy Our considered multimember tribunal member Rather, involved interpretations provisions question, Commonwealth Coatings Corp. 393 145, 337, 301 (1968), disqualifications sole tribunal, panel, Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 1689, 36 488 (1973). Some courts judge's surplusage. ex rel. Langer Kositzky, 38 N.D. 616, 166 N.W. 534 (1918); see, Oakley Aspinwall, N.Y. 547 (1850).4 attention, permitting stand casts vote. Here decisive decision5 author opinion. contended finding disqualification, improper. 32 underscore today undertakes answer disqualification. demarks outer boundaries disqualifications. Congress states, course, remain free impose rigorous standards mandated today. 33 argues retrospective imposition Contracts Article I, § 10; impermissible Excessive Fines Eighth Amendment; lack governing awards Amendment. addition, Ala.Code 12-22-72 (1975), person unsuccessfully appeals assessed 10% penalty, unconstitutional Equal Protection These raise important which, setting, resolved; recusal-for-bias makes them. vacated, proceedings inconsistent 35 Vacated STEVENS 37 concurring. I agree given process. notes, resolution enhanced viability lawsuit. (1955); (1972); Black explained Murchison: 39 "A fair Fairness course absence cases. system always endeavored prevent probability unfairness. end man can 40 write separately forth my understanding statements First, stresses Ante, 824 83); ante, 826. understand language states satisfies test taint Nonpecuniary interests, found supra (judge presided "one-man grand jury" contempt events place proceedings). demonstrates, sufficiently "direct" proceeding substantially advances opportunity attain desired goal actually attained proceeding. (mayor's adjudication traffic fines, contributed finances, process); (proceedings Board Optometry enjoined competitors petitioners therefore stood gain competitively). Nothing read, limit precedents way. indicates contrary acknowledging trigger condemnation 'cannot precision.' 822 625). Second, points favorable several months handed down without settlement, deprived deprivation deliberations most—and, again, read say otherwise—the later confirms 42 different provided fifth below. That irrelevant—Justice outcome, itself impugn description "for court" connotes majority participating judges. It reflects exchanged ideas collective deliberation shapes perceptions addressed importantly, how addressed. And, single participant never measured precision, experience teaches member's involvement plays shaping ultimate disposition. knows participates necessarily imports deliberative deprives litigants assurance impartiality fundamental 43 whom MARSHALL joins, judgment. join decisionmaker stress violation depend apparent belief vote—a factual assumption incorrect mind, irrelevant analysis. me, shared enterprise appellate decisionmaking—whether ultimately wrote, opinion—posed unacceptable danger subtly distorting decisionmaking 45 "when Here, opinion." 828. footnote, elaborates decisiveness vote: himself, divided because, special appointed break tie. 828, 46 doubt suggestion crucial testimony initial reverse favor Lavoies. Accordingly, began work dissent. 168a-169a. writing, switched proposed dissent explained: "It's customary lot times [to ], it's assigned you didn't prevail. ." Id., 167a. know led position know, nine-Member forceful Justices rethink positions votes. final somehow peculiarly "leading role," ignores author's powers persuasion produce larger margin little sense intimate colleagues switch votes, 3, injured participation. 48 tell concessions extracted price shape decisively sentiments nominal author. discern significant difference participated collegial hallmark alter tone holding majority, unanimity. exchange occurs private, reviewing discover biased particular attempt perhaps futile task distilling contribution determine outset. want inquiry provides guarantee 49 sat views, potentially tainted votes colleagues. remaining events—that illustrate, create, infirmity Company sometime retired health reasons. Continental dicta "in 524 [47 441], 'the slightest interest' judge. 148, 339. think misreading Tumey. reference interest" came describing "cases common England separation colonies mother country. 524, point Taft quoted approvingly Cooley, worked 'interest remote, trifling insignificant fairly supposed incapable affecting influencing conduct individual.' 531, 444 T. Constitutional Limitations 594 (7th ed. 1903)). reiterated penalties costs negligible. agency, punishment. treated village peccadilloes." 444. follow decline constitutionalizing rendered constitutes confined parties express discussed separately. far complex concurrences, reasoning hypothetical situations postulate broad rule. Traditionally undertake 'formulate broader precise applied.' Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 466, 483, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring) Liverpool, P.S.S. Emigration Comm'rs, 113 33, 39, 352, 355, 899 (1885)). multi-member panel variety contexts, 48A C.J.S., Judges 159, 868 (collecting cases), sound practice wisely counsels avoid declarations presented, briefed, argued. 12-2-14 authorizes appointment event even-numbered evenly matter, presumably come play.

Category: 3