This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Declaratory Relief
Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Olivia Gonzales v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 100

Published: Oct. 11, 2014 | Result Date: Jul. 25, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:12-cv-02002-BRO-SP Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eric M. Papp


Defendant

Martin E. Rosen
(Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP)

Misty A. Murray
(Maynard Nexsen LLP)


Facts

Olivia Gonzalez sued United of Omaha Life Insurance Co. in connection with the life insurance policy issued by United.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that she was an insured in her employer's group life insurance policy, which provided dependent life insurance coverage for her spouse. She alleged that she was the beneficiary of a $50,000 dependent life insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged that after her husband died, she submitted a claim for death benefits under the group policy. In response, United required her to engage in a post-claims underwriting, with the intent to deny her claims. Hence, plaintiff sued United for declaratory relief, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued at trial that plaintiff's dependent was never eligible for coverage under the terms of the Group Policy because he was disabled as of the effective date of coverage and at all times up until the date he died. As a result, defendant argued that coverage for plaintiff's dependent was expressly excluded under the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, that plaintiff was not entitled to any benefits, and that defendant was entitled to judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

Defendant filed a motion that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 USC sections 1001 et seq.

Result

The court granted United's motion, and entered judgment in its favor and against Gonzalez.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 9, 2012.


#99633

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390