Matson

Sears Life Insurance v. Matson

Good Law
196 F. App'x 479
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2006No. 05-35215California716 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants, as the surviving husband and children of Lena Irena Matson, seek additional life insurance benefits from appellee, Sears Life Insurance Co. (“Sears”). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears.

Under Alaska law, insurance policies are construed “to give effect to the insured’s reasonable expectations.” C.P. ex rel. *480 M.L. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 P.2d 1216, 1222 (Alaska 2000). The insured’s reasonable expectations ‘“will be honored even though painstaking study of the policy provisions would have negated those expectations.’” Id. (quoting Bering Strait Sch. Dist. v. RLI Ins. Co., 873 P.2d 1292, 1295 (Alaska 1994)). The insured’s reasonable expectations are determined by “exam-in[ing] (1) the language of the disputed policy provisions; (2) the language of other provisions in the same policy; (3) extrinsic evidence; and (4) case law interpreting similar provisions.” West v. Umialik Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 1135, 1138 (Alaska 2000) (citing Bering Strait, 873 P.2d at 1295 ).

The life insurance policy, taken as a whole, does not support appellants’ reading of the disputed provision. Appellants argue that the disputed provision…

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.