Nicholudis

MEMORANDUM *

Renee Nicholudis, Nick Nicholudis and Eva Nicholudis appeal the summary judgment in favor of the Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025,1028 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm for the reasons well stated by the district court.

The Nicholudises argue that because the policy was a “Medicare Supplement Policy,” Prudential was prohibited from reducing Eva Nicholudis’s benefits by more than 50 percent on account of her age. Cal. Ins.Code § 10291.5. Therefore, this appeal turns on whether the insurance policy was a Medicare supplement policy. It is not, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(g)(l); Cal. Ins. Code § 10192.1 , and was not transformed into one when Eva Nicholudis began receiving Medicare benefits in 1983.

The policy is a major medical policy with a Limited Medical Expense Insurance provision that is triggered when the policyholder becomes Medicare eligible due to age. It provides “Major Medical Expense Insurance,” and was issued in 1976, nearly 20 years before Eva Nicholudis turned 65 and some seven years before she began…