Opinion ID: 202671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count 2: Breach of Implied Duty

Text: 30 Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting SunAmerica's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count 2, which alleged that SunAmerica had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by fraudulently conceal[ing] that it had made the COI Rate increases in violation of the relevant insurance policy's terms by misrepresenting to the named plaintiffs and their agents several times between 2001 and the present that the Rehabilitation Plan authorized it to make the COI Rate increases ... [whereas] the COI Rate increases were governed by the insurance policy language in ¶ 19. They argue that the district court erroneously held that SunAmerica could not have breached the implied covenant unless it breached an express contractual provision. See, e.g., Speakman v. Allmerica Fin. Life Ins., 367 F.Supp.2d 122, 132 (D.Mass.2005) (A party may breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in every contract without breaching any express term of that contract.). 31 We lack appellate jurisdiction to consider appellants' challenge to the district court decision to dismiss Count 2 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed Count 2 on October 5, 2005. Appellants' Notice of Appeal specifies that their appeal is taken from the district court Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendant entered 3 March 2006 (Exhibit A). (Emphasis added.) Notices of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed. Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Even though notices of appeal are to be liberally construed, if the appellant chooses to designate specific determinations in his notice of appeal — rather than simply appealing from the entire judgment — only the specified issues may be raised on appeal. Constructora Andrade Gutierrez, S.A. v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co., 467 F.3d 38, 43 (1st Cir.2006) (noting that [t]he failure to include a particular issue in a notice of appeal can be fatal to this court's jurisdiction over that issue). The notice of appeal plainly did not place SunAmerica on adequate notice that appellants were challenging the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal six months prior to the grant of summary judgment on the remaining counts of the complaint. 5