Wiley
Wiley v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DARRELL WILEY, Case No. 3:19-cv-02756-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER EXPLAINING JURY
v. INSTRUCTION
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
11 Defendant.
12 This Order explains my resolution of a disputed jury instruction. 13 Plaintiff Darrell Wiley proposed a jury instruction about contract interpretation to which 14 defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) objected. See Dkt. Nos. 110, 15 115. The instruction Wiley proposed is improper. Contract interpretation is a matter of law for 16 the court, not the jury. Merced Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 213 Cal. App. 3d 41, 45 (1989). 17 I drafted an instruction about causation to address the parties’ principal disagreement and 18 invited the parties to file briefs on it, which they have done. Unum does not object to my use of a 19 proximate cause test. See Dkt. No. 125. Wiley does, arguing that “any” contribution of the injury 20 suffices. See Dkt. No. 126. 21 A proximate cause test is appropriate. To the extent that Unum…