Case ID: f-appx_118/html/0861-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katherine TONNAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company, Defendant—Third-Party Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kym Adams Wright; Cheryl Ann Adams; Sheila Adams Sanders; Gaskin-Southall & Associates, Inc., Third-Party Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-30672.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 30, 2004.
    John K. Pierre, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Katherine Tonnas, Covert James Geary, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jennifer Edith Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, LA, for Third Party Defendants-Appellees.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

We have reviewed the summary judgment record in this lawsuit and have studied the appellate briefs of the parties as well. As to plaintiff-appellant Katherine Tonnas’s first argument — that the evidence that she submitted to the district court creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the life insurance policy’s beneficiary — we are satisfied that the district court’s grant of summary judgement, grounded in the reasons patiently, fully, and correctly set forth in its order dated May 20, 2004, should be affirmed.

As to Tonnas’s second argument concerning the district court’s disbursement of the policy proceeds, she has waived it. She challenges the disbursement for the first time on this appeal. Those issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . In re Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 6 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th Cir.1993) ("In short, the argument must be raised to such a degree that the trial court may rule on it.... The argument here was not even identified by name, much less advocated.”).