Timothy Mort v. United of Omaha Life Insurance

Good Law
444 F. App'x 208
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 21, 201110-35762California927 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Timothy Mort alleges that under the terms of his long-term disability insurance policy, he is entitled to a higher monthly benefit payment than he is currently receiving from Appellee United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (“United”). Mort filed a claim in the District of Oregon for breach of the insurance contract. Finding United had presented the only plausible interpretation of the relevant policy terms, the district court granted United’s motion for summary judgment and denied Mort’s cross-motion.

Mort now appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district court’s rulings on summary judgment. See City of L.A. v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440, 446 (9th Cir.2011). Because federal jurisdiction here is based on diversity, “we must follow Oregon law with respect to the interpretation of the insurance policy.” Alexander Mfg. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir.2009). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. As the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them here except as necessary to our decision.

It is undisputed that Mort’s disability began in February 2008 and that he is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.