Abramson

Abramson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Good Law
76 F.3d 304·96 Daily Journal DAR 1493·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1870·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 942
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 9, 1996No. 94-15679California981 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lay, J.

Maxwell Abramson, a resident of New Jersey, received fatal injuries while bicycling in Hawaii when he was hit by a car driven by an underinsured motorist. Abramson’s estate, wife, and children (“the Abramsons”) sought underinsured motorist benefits from Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Aet-na”) for each of the two automobiles insured under Abramson’s policy with Aetna. The policy provided for underinsured motorist benefits up to $250,000 for each person injured. The policy also contained a prohibition against stacking. Stacking allows an insured to recover benefits up to the liability limits for each vehicle covered under the policy. In this ease, stacking increases the maximum underinsured motorist benefits from $250,000 to $500,000.

The Abramsons filed suit against Aetna in federal district court in Hawaii seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy’s anti-stacking provision was invalid. The district court, applying Hawaii law, found the anti-stacking provision invalid and granted summary judgment to the Abramsons. On appeal Aetna urges that the district court failed to properly apply New Jersey law on the basis that Abramson entered into the insurance contract with Aetna…

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.