Fleischer

*555 MEMORANDUM *

Wayne Fleischer appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Provident Life Insurance Company (“Provident”) and Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (“Paul Revere”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We conclude that, as a matter of law, Fleischer suffers from a legal rather than a factual disability, and that he was therefore not entitled to coverage under the policies. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decisions of the district court.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. We must determine whether the non-moving party has raised a genuine issue of material fact such that a trial is necessary, and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Morrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143…