How have courts dealt with the issue of bad faith bankruptcy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in a personal injury case?

In Choy, the plaintiff sued the defendant's insured for damages resulting from an accident. The defendant had rejected the plaintiff's policy limit settlement demand. (Choy v. Redland Ins. Co., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 792-793.) While that litigation was pending, the insured filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff sued the insurance company for intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process, alleging that the bankruptcy filing was initiated in bad faith at the instigation of the company, in order to prevent the plaintiff from collecting a judgment in excess of the policy limits. (Id. at pp. 793-795.) The trial court dismissed the action on the ground the determination whether the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. (Id. at p. 795.)

The court of appeal agreed, explaining "[t]he viability of [the plaintiff's] claims, from the perspective of the jurisdictional issue, depends upon his right to litigate, in state court, the question of [the insured's] alleged 'bad faith' bankruptcy petition." (Choy v. Redland Ins. Co., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 796.) After reviewing the principles governing the doctrine of federal preemption, the court observed, "'State courts are not authorized to determine whether a person's claim for relief under a federal law, in a federal court, and within that court's exclusive jurisdiction, is an appropriate one. Such an exercise of authority would be inconsistent with and subvert the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts by allowing state courts to create their own

Page 17