Arum v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
This text of 73 F. App'x 979 (Arum v. Paul Revere Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Beverly Arum sued Defendant Paul Revere Insurance Company, and the district court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
A. Claims for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith.
Plaintiff produced enough evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was “totally disabled” under the parties’ disability income insurance policy.1 For example, in January 2000, her treating physician reported that for the indefinite future she would be unable to work in any occupation, and he testified that Plaintiff could not perform any productive job without retraining. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact, the district court erred in entering summary judgment.
[981]*981B. Supplemental Social Insurance Benefit Rider.
Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the additional payment because, under the terms of the rider, the payment would be due only if she were not receiving social security benefits. Nevada Revised Statute § 689A.240 does not invalidate an excess policy of this kind. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Nev. 704, 857 P.2d 751 (1993) (holding that a catastrophic medical expense rider was enforceable even though not provided for in § 689A). Therefore, the district court properly enforced the rider according to its terms.
C. Costs.
Because we are reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings, and the issue may not arise again, we need not reach the question whether the district court correctly calculated costs.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 F. App'x 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arum-v-paul-revere-life-insurance-ca9-2003.