Estate of Torres v. Monumental Life Insurance

Good Law
68 F. App'x 818
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 2003No. 02-16010California379 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

The Estate of Rudy Torres (“Estate”) appeals the summary judgment dismissal of its claim against Monumental Life Insurance Company alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by denying accidental death insurance benefits following Torres’ death. Monumental Life claims Torres’ death was caused by his taking a drug other than as prescribed by a physician, and benefits were therefore excluded by the policy.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Estate’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The record shows that Monumental Life made a reasonable investigation into the claim for benefits, reviewing Torres’ records, interviewing several doctors, and exploring the contention that Torres’ liver was not able to metabolize his medication. Further, a genuine dispute exists as to the circumstances of Torres’ death, in particular, whether the medication he ingested was taken “as prescribed by a physician” and his liver failed to metabolize it, or whether Torres ingested an overdose. California law provides that denial of coverage is not unreasonable and does not constitute bad faith if there is a…

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.