Legal Opinion

Osborn ex rel. Petit v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided February 11, 2016No. 3:15-cv-00605-MOPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, JUDGE.

The issue is the appropriate standard of review to apply in review of Defendant MetLife’s decision to deny coverage for Plaintiff Christeen Osborn’s claim for Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance. The parties have filed motions for partial summary judgment on this issue. Specifically, Plaintiff Osborn moves for an order that de novo review will be applied while Defendant MetLife contends that the standard of review is abuse of discretion. I find the appropriate standard of review in this case is abuse of discretion. I DENY Plaintiff Osborn’s Motion [14]…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  4. Rex T. KEARNEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Davis v. Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2022
  2. McCulloch v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
  3. N.C. v. Premera Blue CrossDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
  4. W. v. Providence Health PlanDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API