Opinion ID: 166513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Carolina's Constitutional Standing

Text: 24 Constitutional standing, because it is jurisdictional, may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. See Steel, 523 U.S. at 93, 118 S.Ct. 1003. To establish standing 25 [e]ach element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice. . . . In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts. 26 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Carolina appeals a grant of summary judgment. Thus, it must show each element of constitutional standing by affidavit or other evidence tending to establish specific facts. Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. 27 Pinnacol rightly does not challenge actual injury (Carolina paid for the defense and settlement of Mr. Dymowski's suit) and redressability (damages would make Carolina more whole). Moreover, Carolina is asserting its common-law breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims as RMJOB's subrogee, and therefore can rely on the injury that RMJOB would have suffered had Carolina not agreed to defend and settle Mr. Dymowski's suit. See Vermont Agency of Nat'l Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773-74, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000) (subrogee has standing to assert subrogor's actual injury). Pinnacol contests only causation—whether the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. D.L., 392 F.3d at 1232. It argues that [t]here is no causal connection between the actual injury suffered by Carolina Casualty, payment of the defense and settlement of the state court lawsuit, and the actions of Pinnacol, which had no responsibility to defend the state court lawsuit. Aplee. Br. at 25. 28 The trouble with this contention is that Pinnacol's duty (responsibility) is irrelevant to constitutional standing. Causation is established by showing that Carolina was injured by Pinnacol's failure to defend or contribute to the settlement—as it plainly was, because it paid and Pinnacol did not. The injury is thereby traced to the challenged action of the defendant. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180, 120 S.Ct. 693. Whether this failure to defend or indemnify violated a duty owed by Pinnacol is then a matter for the merits hearing, not for a standing inquiry. See Steel, 523 U.S. at 92-93, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (whether cause of action exists is merits question, not jurisdictional one). We hold that Carolina has constitutional standing.