Ortiz

Ortiz v. Royal Maccabees Life Insurance

Good Law
32 F. App'x 934
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 1, 2002No. 00-56785; D.C. No. CV-00-03035-JSLCalifornia816 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Willene Bear Ortiz and Jose Ortiz, Jr. (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Company (“Royal Maccabees”) as to their claims for, inter alia, breach of insurance contract, wrongful death, professional negligence, and punitive damages. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Appellants first argue that the district court erred in finding that there were no triable issues of material fact as to their contract and bad faith claims. We agree. Royal Maccabees denied disability benefits to Dr. Ortiz on the ground that he was not under the “regular care” of a physician. Under the policy, “regular care” means “care and treatment as required by the physician.” Under the section entitled, “Exceptions Reductions and Limitations Of…

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.