Beverly Burton v. the Prudential Insurance Co.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Beverly Burton, on behalf of herself and a potential class of California life insurance beneficiaries, appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We review de novo both questions of statutory interpretation, Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011), and dismissals for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Weiland v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 778 F.3d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.

1. The district court correctly interpreted California Insurance Code § 10172.5(a) as requiring insurers to pay at least the same interest rate that they paid to their depositors during the period in which the life insurance benefits were past due. Burton contends that § 10172.5(a) requires insurers to pay the interest rate in effect on the date of an insured’s death. Prudential argues that the district court correctly interpreted the statute or, alternatively, that the statute requires insurers to…