Opinion ID: 691735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Partial Summary Judgment on Bad Faith Claim

Text: 14 The Cabigases argue that, in light of factual disputes over Chicago's handling of their insurance claim, partial summary judgment on their bad faith claim was improper. We review the district court's grant of partial summary judgment de novo. See Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). 15 A claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can arise under California law when an insurer fails to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured by refusing, without proper cause, to compensate its insured for a loss covered by the policy. Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 21 Cal.3d 910, 920, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 394 (1978) (quotation omitted). The district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment because there existed a genuine issue as to [the insurer's] liability under California law. Safeco Ins. Co. v. Guyton, 692 F.2d 551, 557 (9th Cir.1982), disapproved on other grounds, Garvey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty, 48 Cal.3d 395, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292 (1989). 16 AFFIRMED.