Philip Seltzer v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Com

Good Law
478 Fed. Appx. 455·688 F.3d 966·2012 WL 2917076·12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8130·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14681
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 18, 201211-15046California2,964 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff Philip Seltzer has asserted contract and bad faith claims against Defendant Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and Unum Group, Paul Revere’s parent company. This appeal presents the question of when the claims accrued for the purpose of determining whether those claims are barred by Arizona’s statute of limitations.

As described in more detail below, Seltzer became disabled in 1981 and was unable to continue his career as a chiropractor. He was paid monthly disability benefits by Paul Revere starting that year. Under the policies, those payments would continue for the rest of Seltzer’s life if the disability was the result of an “accident,” but would cease when Seltzer turned 65 if it was the result of “sickness.” Seltzer initially reported the disability as a “sickness,” and Paul Revere classified it that way. Seltzer later revised the description to characterize it as the result of an “accident.” After meeting with a Paul Revere employee in 1986, Seltzer signed a statement at Paul Revere’s request that “I agree to the understanding of this as a sickness claim and not an accident.” Some years later, Seltzer again took the position that the disability resulted…

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.