Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
California Supreme Court
997 P.2d 1153 (Cal. 2000)
Facts
Metropolitan Life Insurance (MetLife) (defendant) entered into a contract with Dr. Louis Potvin (plaintiff) to include him as a participant on two of its preferred provider lists. Under the non-exclusive contract, Potvin provided services to individuals covered by MetLife in return for a set fee. Termination of the agreement could be had by either party providing 30-days written notice. MetLife notified Potvin in writing that it was terminating his status as a preferred provider, without cause. Potvin asked for clarification. MetLife notified Potvin that he did not meet the retention standard due to his malpractice history. Potvin had been sued four times for malpractice, prior to his contract with MetLife. Three of the suits were dismissed and one settled. After unsuccessfully attempting to get a hearing on the matter, Potvin filed suit against MetLife alleging that the termination devastated his practice and reputation. The trial court granted MetLife’s motion for summary judgment on grounds that Potvin’s complaint failed to allege a claim. Potvin appealed and the court of appeals reversed, holding that his complaint did properly allege a claim and that MetLife should have provided Potvin with an opportunity for a hearing on the termination. Metlife appealed to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennard, J.)
Dissent (Brown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
