Case ID: f-appx_651/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, and Aisha Zrihan, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES BUTWIN INSURANCE TRUST FUND, Trustees of Caryn Butwin Sokol and Sandra Butwin; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Carol Dulis, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Yafit Butwin and Harvey A. Coleman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James C. Butwin, Defendants.
    No. 14-16080
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 10, 2016, San Francisco, California
    June 2, 2016
    
      James D. Sherrets, Diana J. Vogt, Sher-rets Bruno & Vogt LLC, Omaha, NE, for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Thomas Merrill Quigley, Sherman & Howard LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Aisha Zrihan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her deceased son-in-law’s family members in a dispute over life insurance proceeds. We dismiss this appeal for lack of standing. Zrihan has no personal claim to the insurance proceeds. She was not an insured, owner, or beneficiary on either of the policies. Zrihan’s daughter was a named beneficiary, but the daughter’s estate did not appeal the district court’s order. Zrihan’s status as her daughter’s heir does not confer standing because, under Arizona law, only the personal representative of an estate may bring claims on behalf of the estate. See In re Tamer’s Estate, 20 Ariz. 228, 179 P. 643, 644 (1919); City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer, 78 Ariz. 378, 280 P.2d 698, 699 (1955). Nor can Zrihan claim the insurance proceeds as James’s creditor. James was not a named beneficiary on either policy. And Arizona law precludes Zrihan from contesting formal defects in James’s contingent beneficiary designation. See, e.g., Doss v. Kalas, 94 Ariz. 247, 383 P.2d 169, 172 (1963).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here.