Stanton v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

Good Law
37 F. Supp. 2d 1159·99 Daily Journal DAR 4299·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 614
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1999CIV. 98 CV 0764-B (JAH)California4,494 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brewster, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

This Motion for Summary Judgment rests on the assertion that the Plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs claims — request for declaratory relief, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and fraud — arise out of Defendant’s partial denial of benefits under a business income overhead expense (BOE) policy.

II. Factual Background

Plaintiff Mark P. Stanton is an ophthalmologist. Mark P. Stanton, M.D., Inc. is a California corporation. Dr. Stanton has an employment agreement with Mark P. Stanton, M.D., Inc. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the State of California. Dr. Stanton purchased the policy in question through Randall G. Ames, an authorized agent of Paul Revere.

The validity of this policy and its terms are not in dispute. The parties do dispute whether Dr. Stanton is entitled to the full benefits available under the policy. Dr. Stanton asserts he suffered a…

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.