Segal v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Docket: No. 99-17182; D.C. No. CV-98-01264-GEB/PAN
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 22, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (Mass Mutual) after determining that no material issues of fact remained for trial. It found that the insurance policy's terms were unambiguous and that the recurrent disability provision considered prior disability periods when calculating specific timeframes, but did not permanently establish the benefit amount or period for the recurrent injury. The policy allowed for changes to the benefits and benefit period at the insured's request, which was applicable when Segal's disability recurred. The court ruled that because Mass Mutual effectively reissued the entire disability policy, California Insurance Code § 10321, which concerns changes post-issuance, did not apply. The modifications made to the policy were not considered an unenforceable exclusion of existing benefits but rather a legitimate alteration at Segal's request. Segal's argument regarding the district court's consideration of declarations from two Mass Mutual employees was waived because he did not provide a sufficient explanation or legal authority to support his claim of error. Additionally, the court denied Segal’s motion to amend the judgment and complaint, as such a motion requires the judgment to be reopened under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. Segal failed to show a valid reason for reopening, leading to the proper denial of his motion. The court's decision was affirmed, and the case was deemed appropriate for submission without oral argument, with the disposition not allowed for publication or citation under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.