Jeong
Jeong v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Sandra and Leonard Jeong, as trustees of their father’s trust, sued Minnesota Mu *449 tual for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for denying their claims on their father’s life insurance policy. The case was tried to a jury, which found for Minnesota Mutual. They appeal the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of California and the order denying them Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial. Appellants challenge the trial court’s ruling on the following grounds: 1) the special verdict was fatally inconsistent; 2) the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on the concealment defense; and 3) the district court erred in granting Minnesota Mutual’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not repeat them here.
A. Inconsistent Jury Verdict
A district court’s order denying a motion for a new trial is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. Magnussen v. YAK, Inc., 73 F.3d 245, 246 (9th Cir.1996). However, when the motion is based on “an…