Sebold

Sebold v. Sentry Life Insurance

Good Law
66 F. App'x 732
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 3, 2003No. 02-15962; D.C. No. CV-96-00364-FRZCalifornia386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Dr. Ronald Sebold (“Sebold”), appealing an adverse summary judgment grant, claims entitlement to disability coverage pursuant to an insurance policy purchased from appellee Sentry Life Insurance Co. (“Sentry”). However, the policy contains an express exclusion providing that “no claim for benefits shall be payable for any loss arising from, contributed to, or caused by psoriasis ... or psoriatic arthritis, including treatment for or complications thereof.” Despite Sebold’s arguments to the contrary, the record shows that there can be no genuine factual dispute that his loss arose from or was “contributed to or caused by” his longstanding psoriasis. The plain language of the exclusion bars coverage for a loss that arises from or is contributed to or caused by Sebold’s psoriasis. See Watkins v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 107 Ariz. 56 , 481 P.2d 849, 855 (1971) (excluding coverage because insured’s heart attack suffered when chasing cattle was “caused or contributed to by” his underlying heart condition).

Even if, as Sebold argues, Arizona law required the excluded condition to be a proximate cause of the injury for which coverage is requested, psoriasis was a proximate…

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.