Summerlin v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Life, Health & Accident Plan
District Court, M.D. Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
LAND, District Judge.
The Court presently has pending before it Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion. As discussed below, Defendants’ motion is denied, and based upon the stipulation of facts agreed to by the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case. Plaintiff Ray E. Summerlin was, at all relevant times, a covered person in the Georgia-Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident Plan (“the Plan”). His dependent spouse, Janet, was also covered by the Plan. The Plan is a…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- FMC Corp. v. HollidaySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans, Inc. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Cagle v. BrunerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2006
- REED v. SOSSONGDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2022