NW Mutl Life Ins Co v. Babayan

Opinion

Opinions of the United

2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

12-12-2005

NW Mutl Life Ins Co v. Babayan Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-3521

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation "NW Mutl Life Ins Co v. Babayan" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 24. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/24

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-3521

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.

v.

KATHLEEN L. BABAYAN D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-00717

KATHLEEN BABAYAN

v.

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

JOSEPH M. SAVINO, GENERAL AGENT NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FINANCIAL NETWORK A/K/A AND D/B/A THE SAVINO FINANCIAL GROUP; THOMAS GALLINA D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-01622

Kathleen L. Babayan,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 03-cv-00717 and 03-cv-01622) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson

Argued October 26, 2005

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed November 30, 2005, be amended as follows:

Page 9, footnote 6, which read:

Although a resident of Pennsylvania, Babayan worked in New Jersey and was entitled short-term disability benefits pursuant to New Jersey law.

shall read:

Although a resident of Pennsylvania, Babayan worked in New Jersey and was entitled to short-term disability benefits pursuant to New Jersey law.

Page 14, first full sentence on line 2, which read:

We are not, however, and we hold that Babayan's answer to Question 33.k constituted bad faith matter of law for the reasons set forth below.

shall read:

We are not, however, and we hold that Babayan's answer to Question 33.k constituted bad faith as a matter of law for the reasons set forth below.

Page 32, footnote 23, line 4: “under” should be “until.”

By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher Circuit Judge

Dated: December 12, 2005 SLC/cc: Daniel J. Zucker, Esq.

David S. Senoff, Esq. John P. Penders, Esq. Charles W. Craven, Esq.