Pirkheim v. First UNUM Life Insurance
District Court, D. Colorado
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BABCOCK, District Judge.
Defendant, First UNUM Life Insurance Company (“First UNUM”), moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Plaintiffs, Frank Pirkheim and Roxanne Pirkheim, also move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. The cross-motions, which require construction of an insurance policy, are adequately briefed and oral argument will not materially aid their resolution. For the reasons set forth below, I grant First UNUM’s motion and deny Mr. and Mrs. Pirkheim’s motion. Subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
I. FACTS
The following…
2Cases cited33 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Jerome Otteson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Arocho v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 2000
- Carlile v. Reliance Standard Ins. Co.District Court, D. Utah · 2019
- Erbe v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2013