Legal Opinion
Lancaster v. United States Shoe Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided August 8, 1996No. C-95-0873PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
BRAZIL, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Donald Lancaster (“Lancaster”) suffered serious head injuries after being hit by a car. He is now confined in a nursing home, where he needs total assistance for virtually all his daily living activities. Lancaster’s conservator enrolled him in United States Shoe (“U.S. Shoe”) Corporation’s health care plan for retirees. U.S. Shoe has declined to pay benefits for Lancaster’s confinement, relying primarily on two grounds: (1) Lancaster exhausted a 365-day limit in the benefits plan on…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Martin Hansen, Cross-Appellee v. The Continental Insurance Company and Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- National Mutual Insurance v. McMahon & Sons, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1987
- Richard Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gaines v. Sargent Fletcher, Inc. Group Life Insurance PlanDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2004
- McCoy v. Federal InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1998
- Goldinger v. Datex-Ohmeda Cash Balance PlanDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2010
- Toohey v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. Health & Welfare PlanDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010
- Toohey v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP. HEALTH & WELFAREDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2010