Legal Opinion · Dissent

Berry v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided July 9, 2009No. 2008 CA 0945Published

1DissentGuidry, J.

U dissent because I believe the majority mistakes the issue before us, which is strictly the legal issue of whether there is coverage pursuant to a disability policy for Dr. Berry in his present state of addiction. While acknowledging that the facts are “generally Undisputed”, the majority finds there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the degree (i.e., quantification) of the risk of relapse faced by Dr. Berry should he return to the practice of anesthesiology. Based on this alleged “genuine issue of material fact”, the majority remands to the trial court for further proceedings…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Samaha v. RauSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2008
  2. Goomar v. Centennial Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1994
  3. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. OuelletteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1992
  4. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Daniel J. Millstein, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
  5. Brumer v. National Life of VermontDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995

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

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

Powered by the Exa API