Legal Opinion
Jane Forsthoff v. Continental Casualty Company
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 10, 2026No. 3:26-cv-01884Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE FORSTHOFF, Case No. 26-cv-01884-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS 10 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 18, 19 COMPANY, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Jane Forsthoff (“Forsthoff”) purchased a long-term care insurance policy from 14 defendant Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) that she alleges included a 5% annual 15 compound inflation protection rider. She claims that Continental altered the terms of her Policy 16 without consent by replacing the original inflation protection rider…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- In Re Gilead Sciences Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Sterling Usher v. City of Los Angeles, Richard A. Gonzales, Michael E. Melton, Jose E. Ramirez, Joe Rios, and Robert L. VannCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.