Golt

Golt v. Aetna Life Insurance

Good Law
186 F.3d 1184
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 1999No. 98-35034California2,504 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKeown, J.

ORDER

I

Pursuant to Rule 44(c) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, we respectfully request the Montana Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to adjudicate the following questions of Montana law:

The answers to the certified questions will be determinative of the appeal pending in our court in this diversity action. We acknowledge that your Court may decide to reformulate the questions, and that our phrasing of the questions is not intended to restrict your Court’s consideration of this request. We would be grateful for any guidance your Court can give us, whether or not directly responsive to the questions as we have phrased them.

*1186 II

In this diversity action, Mary E. Golt (“Mrs. Golt”) has appealed from the final judgment entered following the grant of the motions of General American Life Insurance Co. (“General American”) and Aetna Life Insurance Co. (“Aetna”) (collectively the “Insurers”) for a summary judgment in Mrs. Golt’s action to recover accidental death benefits for the death of her husband, John C. Golt, III (“Mr. Golt”).

Mr. Golt worked as a civilian employee of the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (“AAFES”) at Malmstrom Air Force Base from…

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.