Arum

Arum v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

Good Law
73 F. App'x 979
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 25, 2003No. 02-16211; D.C. No. CV-00-00259-KJDCalifornia302 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Beverly Arum sued Defendant Paul Revere Insurance Company, and the district court granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

A. Claims for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith.

Plaintiff produced enough evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was “totally disabled” under the parties’ disability income insurance policy. 1 For example, in January 2000, her treating physician reported that for the indefinite future she would be unable to work in any occupation, and he testified that Plaintiff could not perform any productive job without retraining. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact, the district court erred in entering summary judgment.

*981 B. Supplemental Social Insurance Benefit Rider.

Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the additional payment because, under the terms of the rider, the payment would be due only if she were not receiving social security benefits. Nevada Revised Statute § 689A.240 does not invalidate an excess policy of this kind. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 109 Nev. 704 , 857 P.2d 751 (1993) (holding that a catastrophic medical…

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.