Ceimo v. General American Life Insurance

MEMORANDUM **

1. Assuming Defendants preserved the specific objection they raise on appeal, the district court’s formulation of the jury instruction defining “total disability” was a correct statement of Arizona law. See Nystrom v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 148 Ariz. 208, 713 P.2d 1266, 1270 (1986); see also Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1007 (9th Cir.2004).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. The expert testimony, lay testimony and documentary evidence were all relevant and helpful to the jury. See Sementilli v.…