Rawls

Rawls v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
219 F. Supp. 2d 1063·2002 WL 31015278·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17764
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 20, 2002CIV.01-10529 DDPCalifornia2,479 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

ORDER DENYING UNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on the defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America’s (“UNUM”) motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike, the plaintiffs’ third claim for injunctive relief in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

I. Background

The plaintiffs, Brian Rawls and Lynn Carroll, allege that they were participants in separate employee welfare benefit plans and were covered under group long-term disability insurance policies issued by the defendant, UNUM, to the plaintiffs’ employers. Rawls was employed by the defendant Senn Delaney Leadership Consulting Group (“Senn Delaney”) and Carroll was employed by Sebastiani Vineyards, Inc. (“Sebastiani”). (SAC ¶¶ 6,17.)

The plaintiffs allege that they made separate claims to UNUM for long term disability insurance benefits, and the Senn Delaney Plan and Sebastiani Plan, through their claims administrator UNUM, erroneously and wrongfully denied the claims. The SAC alleges that the denial of the claims was accompanied by a letter informing the plaintiffs that any appeal must be received within 90…

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.