Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03792/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03792-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. KORBHOLZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-03792 JSW

ORDER REQUIRING ELECTION

AND FURTHER BRIEFING

This matter came before the Court for a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment on the issues of remedies. The Court has carefully considered the parties’

papers, relevant legal authority, and their arguments, and concludes that Plaintiff must elect

between affirming the contract or treating it as terminated. The Court also shall require further

briefing on Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, as set forth in this Order.

In his papers, Plaintiff states that he seeks a declaration that the insurance policy be

reinstated and that he will not be required to pay back premiums. If, however, the Court rejects

this legal argument, Plaintiff requests damages as an alternative remedy. At the hearing,

Plaintiff, through counsel, stated that he believed the instant motions would provide “guidance”

on the available remedies. In essence, Plaintiff asks this Court for an advisory opinion on the

consequences of affirming the insurance policy. As the Court noted, however, this case is no

longer at the pleadings phase. Indeed, on the issue of the proper interpretation of the policy,

Defendant’s liability has been established. Thus, the question is what form the judgment should

take. 

Case 3:03-cv-03792-JSW Document 85 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff refers the Court to E.H. Boly & Son, Inc. v. Schneider, 525 F.2d 20 (9th Cir.

1975), for the proposition that the Court may elect the appropriate remedy. In that case, the

Ninth Circuit noted that a plaintiff may claim damages and restitution as alternative remedies,

leaving the ultimate election to the court. See id. at 23 n.3. The decision as to whether affirm

or terminate the contract had already been made. The Court does not read E.H. Boly to stand

for the proposition that the Court is permitted to elect for the plaintiff whether to affirm or

terminate the contract at issue.

Accordingly, the Court shall require Plaintiff to submit an election as to whether he

intends to affirm the insurance policy or treat it as terminated in light of the Defendant’s breach. 

If Plaintiff intends to treat the insurance policy as terminated, Plaintiff shall be required to

submit additional briefing, including evidentiary support, on the proper measure of and amount

of damages.

With respect to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, because the focus of Plaintiff’s brief

was on post-appeal conduct, rather than on the conduct alleged in the Complaint, the Court shall

permit further briefing on this cause of action. Furthermore, the Court believes that the postappeal conduct should be considered on this cause of action. The Court does not intend to reopen the issue of whether Defendant acted in bad faith in denying Plaintiff’s application to

reinstate coverage.

The briefs required by this Order shall not exceed ten pages in length. Defendant’s

opposition briefs also shall be limited to ten pages. Plaintiff’s reply briefs shall not exceed five

pages. Further, the statement of election and all briefs shall be due to this Court by no later than

September 19, 2008. Defendant’s opposition briefs shall be due on October 3, 2008. Plaintiff’s

replies shall be due on October 10, 2008. At that time, the matter will be deemed submitted, but 

the Court shall notify the parties if it believes a hearing is necessary.

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-03792-JSW Document 85 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

If the parties are able to resolve their differences in the interim, they shall so notify the

Court and request that the briefing schedules be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03792-JSW Document 85 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 3