Maes

Maes v. Standard Insurance

Good Law
8 F. App'x 758
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 25, 2001Nos. 99-17463, 00-15492; D.C. No. CV-98-0353 CRBCalifornia1,222 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Standard Insurance Company (Standard) appeals from a judgment entered against it after a three-day bench trial. Standard also appeals from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to Maes. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. We have jurisdiction over these timely filed appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

Standard contends that it was entitled to rescind Maes’s supplemental disability insurance policy because Maes made fraudulent misrepresentations in her Medical History Statement (MHS) with the intent to deceive. Standard argues that Maes, an experienced insurance industry professional, knowingly omitted information about her chronic back problem with the intent to induce Standard to issue the policy. Confining its review to the administrative record, the district court found that (1) Maes made no misrepresentations on the MHS, and (2) she did not intend to' deceive Standard.

While the district judge’s findings were based solely on the administrative record, “we have in numerous prior cases held that when a district judge tries a case on a written record without…

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.