Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lawshe v. Amerus Life Insurance
Citation: 19 F. App'x 692Docket: No. 00-15643; D.C. No. CV-98-00739-FCD/DAD
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 26, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Ruth Ann Lawshe appeals a district court ruling that granted summary judgment to AmerUs Life Insurance Company regarding a life insurance policy for Lawshe’s deceased father. AmerUs contended the policy lapsed eight days before his death due to non-payment, asserting no premium was received within the 60-day grace period. Lawshe claims entitlement to a $500,000 death benefit. Central to the appeal are several contradictory admissions made by AmerUs. Initially, AmerUs admitted that the policy attached to Lawshe's complaint was accurate and that the insured made all scheduled premium payments of $1,875 quarterly. However, during the summary judgment motion, AmerUs submitted a declaration from a company official that contradicted these admissions, asserting that the attached policy was incorrect and presented a different version of the policy that had been newly recreated. The declaration also claimed that the insured only made 19 of the required 21 premium payments and provided incorrect information regarding the address for the Notice of Pending Lapse, attributing this error to reliance on outdated paper files. AmerUs provided evidence, including a computer tape indicating an address change and microfiche reports suggesting notices were sent, but admitted to lacking copies of the actual notices. Additionally, an agent’s deposition indicated he communicated the lapse notice to the family, despite inconsistencies in his testimony regarding their phone access. The discrepancies between AmerUs' initial admissions and later claims raise substantial issues about the policy’s terms and the adequacy of notice regarding its lapse, warranting a reversal of the summary judgment in favor of Lawshe. The implications of these contradictions could affect the determination of whether Lawshe's father maintained coverage at the time of his death. AmerUs may have violated the terms of the insurance policy and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it failed to send a notice of impending lapse to the correct address. Additionally, if AmerUs's payment records are incorrect, the policy could have had sufficient cash value to remain active beyond the insured's death. Lawshe contends that AmerUs should be bound by its admissions but did not raise this issue in the district court, leading to a waiver of that argument on appeal. While admissions in pleadings are generally binding, Lawshe's failure to bring them up in the lower court prevents her from enforcing them now. However, she argues that contradictory statements from AmerUs create genuine issues of material fact that should negate summary judgment, particularly regarding which policy governs and whether proper notice of lapse was sent. The court agrees, noting that the initial admissions and conflicting statements regarding the policy and notice raise material factual disputes. The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, while the disposition is not to be published or cited except as allowed by specific Ninth Circuit rules.