Legal Opinion

Neiman v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

District Court, S.D. Florida

Decided August 26, 2002No. 00-2140-CIVPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MORENO, District Judge.

Brian Neiman, who has been found guilty of illegally practicing law, seeks disability benefits to compensate him for loss of income derived entirely from that illegal activity. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the insurer, precluding the Plaintiff from recovering under his disability insurance policy for an occupation he could not legally perform prior to his alleged disability.

On May 2, 2002, the Florida Supreme Court stated:

Neiman’s activities fail the “duck” test. That is, in common parlance, one would expect…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Solano v. a Navas Party Production, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2010
  2. Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API