Sequeira

Sequeira v. Lincoln National Life Insurance

Good Law
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 764·239 Cal. App. 4th 1438
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2015A139639California4,272 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Like most of us, Donald Sequeira (Sequeira) did not work on January 1, 2010, because it was a paid holiday. Tragically, he was hospitalized the next day with a sudden illness and died on January 6 without ever returning to work.

Sequeira’s widow sought benefits under a supplemental life insurance policy that was issued to Sequeira’s employer on January 1, 2010. The trial court ruled that she was not entitled to benefits because the policy required her husband to be “on the job, at his employer’s place of employment, performing his customary duties” between January 1 and his death.

We disagree with the trial court and reverse its judgment. The policy is ambiguous regarding whether Sequeira needed to perform his work responsibilities on New Year’s Day or anytime after that in order for his wife to receive benefits. We therefore interpret the policy in favor of Sequeira’s reasonable expectations, which are that he should not have to work on New Year’s Day or when he is sick in order to receive coverage that he has paid for.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Donald Sequeira’s Employment and Purchase of Life Insurance

Sequeira had been employed with the City of Vacaville…

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.