Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04517/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04517-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Defendant
Unumprovident Corporation
Defendant
Randall M. West
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

 These are plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action, which remain in this case. The Court

previously dismissed plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. See Order Granting

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action (Docket No. 22).

2

 Defendants also move to strike plaintiff’s declaration concerning a California state insurance

settlement involving defendants. The Court agrees with defendants that the declaration is irrelevant to

the instant motion and STRIKES the Declaration of Ray Bourhis in Support of Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary judgment (Docket No. 35).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL M. WEST, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION 

and UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF AMERICA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-04517 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On April 13, 2007, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

This action concerns plaintiff’s claims that defendant insurer should have paid plaintiff under the total

disability provisions of his insurance policies rather than the residual disability provisions. Plaintiff filed

suit in California state court on May 9, 2006, alleging breach of contract, intentional, fraudulent, and

negligent misrepresentation, tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and

intentional infliction of emotional distress.1

 Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that

all of plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because the causes of action accrued in 2001.2 Plaintiff argues

that the statute of limitations has not accrued on any claims because defendants have not met their

burden of showing that plaintiff had all elements of his claim in 2001.

Case 3:06-cv-04517-SI Document 43 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 The Court makes no finding as to the merits of plaintiff’s claims. This order is limited solely

to the statute of limitations issue presented by defendants’ motion. 

2

Given the continuing nature of a disability insurance contract, the Court does not find that

defendants have shown that the causes of action accrued in June 2001, when the first residual payment

was made. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Docket No.

28).3

The Court will refer this case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04517-SI Document 43 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 2