Legal Opinion

Pirkheim v. First UNUM Life Insurance

District Court, D. Colorado

Decided May 28, 1999No. Civ.A. 97-B-2528PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  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. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. 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

  1. Arocho v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 2000
  2. Carlile v. Reliance Standard Ins. Co.District Court, D. Utah · 2019
  3. Erbe v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API