Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sorensen v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2005No. 30476Published

1DissentJustice Jones

Because the district court properly granted Sorensen’s motion for summary judgment and denied Trinity’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, I respectfully dissent. In my view, Trinity did cause substantial damage to Sorensen by disrupting her retirement plans, which were made with the active advice and assistance of Trinity. The Summary Plan is the “contract” between these parties because Trinity is estopped from asserting otherwise. Trinity breached the contract, including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained therein. Further, Trinity is responsible to Sorensen…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Alegria v. PayonkIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corp. v. HamillIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Taylor v. HerboldIdaho Supreme Court · 1971
  4. IRON EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. v. Quality Design Systems, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Abbruscato v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue ShieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API