Lane Siefers v. Pacificare Life Assurance Comp

Good Law
461 F. App'x 652
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 201111-15524California1,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Lane Siefers (Lane) and family members (the Siefers) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of PacifiCare Life Assurance Company (PacifiCare), in an action arising from Pa-cifiCare’s rescission of a health insurance policy covering Lane’s daughter, Riley Siefers (Riley). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. In Nevada, even after an insurance company accepts an insurance application and premium payment from an individual, the company does not grant temporary coverage unless the company also gives the individual a conditional receipt. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Lamme, 83 Nev. 146 , 425 P.2d 346, 346-47 (1967). This record does not indicate that a conditional receipt was issued here. Furthermore, the health insurance application’s terms and conditions precluded any reasonable belief that the application, alone or in tandem with a premium payment, would provide temporary coverage for Riley.

2. Nevada courts apply contract rules of interpretation to insurance policies. See, e.g., Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 124 Nev. 319 , 184 P.3d 390, 393 (2008). Evidence that serves to defeat a contract, and not to…

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.