Legal Opinion
Goomar v. Centennial Life Insurance
District Court, S.D. California
Decided March 8, 1994No. Civ. 93-0672-G/R(CM)PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RHOADES, District Judge.
This case is before me on both plaintiffs and defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons given below, defendants’ motion is granted, and plaintiffs motion is denied. 1
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. To be eligible for benefits under both the Centennial Life Policy and the Sentry Life Policy, a claimant must: (1) be totally disabled, such that claimant…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. JeffersonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2002
- Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Daniel J. Millstein, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Brumer v. National Life of VermontDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995
- Paul Revere Life Insurance v. BavaroDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Berry v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2009
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.