Legal Opinion

Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Fleischer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 30, 2001No. Nos. 99-56866, 00-56193; D.C. Nos. CV-96-00791-ABC, CV-97-00046-ABCPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*555MEMORANDUM *

Wayne Fleischer appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Provident Life Insurance Company (“Provident”) and Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (“Paul Revere”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that, as a matter of law, Fleischer suffers from a legal rather than a factual disability, and that he was therefore not entitled to coverage under the policies. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decisions of the district court.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. We must…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Balint v. Carson CityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. WoodallDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 2003
  2. City of Seattle v. Monsanto CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
  3. City of Seattle v. Monsanto CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
  4. Osborn v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API