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.
Yaghoubian v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Citation: 44 F. App'x 92Docket: No. 01-55594; D.C. No. CV-00-03992-JSL
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 22, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff Nejde F. Yaghoubian appealed the summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company in a diversity action. The court affirmed the decision upon de novo review. To qualify for lifetime benefits under his disability insurance policy, Yaghoubian needed to be totally disabled on the policy anniversary closest to his 60th birthday (August 22, 1994) and remain so until the first anniversary after his 65th birthday (August 22, 1999). The policy defined total disability as being unable to perform the principal duties of his occupation and not gainfully employed in any occupation. Yaghoubian contended that being unable to perform one of his principal duties (marketing for Quan-tech Systems) constituted total disability; however, this interpretation was flawed. It would conflict with California law by effectively merging the definitions of total and partial disability, which the court found inconsistent with established legal interpretations. Additionally, his argument that his only principal duty was marketing was contradicted by evidence of his ongoing work as an engineering consultant for major institutions, where he engaged in various principal duties and explicitly acknowledged these in benefit requests. As a result, the court concluded that Yaghoubian was not totally disabled since he could still perform some of his principal duties, making it unnecessary to determine if he was gainfully employed. Furthermore, his fraud claims were unsuccessful; he alleged the Defendant misrepresented the requirements for lifetime benefits, but the court affirmed that the Defendant's representation was accurate, as Yaghoubian was entitled only to partial disability benefits, which he received for fourteen years. No triable issue exists regarding the breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim. Yaghoubian's allegation that the Defendant misrepresented his ineligibility for lifetime benefits is unfounded, as the statement was accurate. He was informed of his ineligibility in the lifetime benefit endorsement, which stipulated that benefits would cease on the policy anniversary nearest to his 60th birthday if he was not totally disabled. His requests for partial disability benefits indicated his awareness of his partial disability status. The Defendant's refusal to settle does not indicate bad faith, given its belief in Yaghoubian's ability to perform some principal duties. Regarding equitable estoppel, Yaghoubian was only partially disabled from 1994 to 1999 and cannot use this doctrine to extend coverage, as it cannot create insurance coverage that did not originally exist. His claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress are unsupported, as there is no evidence of bad faith or the severity of emotional distress. Furthermore, no evidence substantiates his claim for punitive damages or allegations of malice, leading to the conclusion that such claims are legally barred. Yaghoubian’s alternative assertion that the Defendant misled him about lifetime benefits is based solely on his vague and self-serving declaration, which fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact. The ruling is affirmed, with a note that it is not to be published or cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.