Willis M. Emberton v. Hartford Life Insurance Benefit Trust Life Insurance

977 F.2d 588 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Willis M. EMBERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE; Benefit Trust Life Insurance, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-55953. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1992. * Decided Oct. 15, 1992. Before JAMES R. BROWNING, DAVID R. THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). The appellant argues the disability insurance policy is ambiguous as a matter of law. We disagree. 3 "Courts will not adopt a strained or absurd interpretation in order to create an ambiguity where none exists." Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta, 640 P.2d 764, 767-68 (Cal.1982). No ambiguity exists here regarding qualification for the social insurance contingency monthly benefit under the policy. The policy states that…