Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

Eighth Circuit

Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

128 F.3d 675, 1997 WL 687649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1446NI

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F.3d 675 (Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Insurance, 128 F.3d 675, 1997 WL 687649 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John E. Coonley, as Trustee of the James E. Coonley II Trust, and ABCM Corporation appeal an adverse grant of summary judg-' ment on their claim that James E. Coonley II was an insured employee under a group life insurance policy governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. See Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 956 F.Supp. 841 (N.D.Iowa 1997). Having reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. The district court has written a comprehensive opinion addressing'the issues raised by the parties, and we have nothing to add to the district court’s analysis. We see no error by the district court and affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

John E. Coonley, as Trustee of the James E. Coonley II Trust, and ABCM Corporation appeal an adverse grant of summary judg-' ment on their claim that James E. Coonley II was an insured employee under a group life insurance policy governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. See Coonley v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 956 F.Supp. 841 (N.D.Iowa 1997). Having reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. The district court has written a comprehensive opinion addressing'the issues raised by the parties, and we have nothing to add to the district court’s analysis. We see no error by the district court and affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F.3d 675, 1997 WL 687649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coonley-v-fortis-benefits-insurance-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack