Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02906/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02906-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Casualty Company
Defendant
Sandra Tinker
Plaintiff
Versata, Inc. Group Disability Income Insurance Plan
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

2:06-CV-2906-RRB-PAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-2906-RRB-KJM

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RE CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS

I. Introduction

At Docket 19 are Defendants Versata, Inc. Group

Disability Income Insurance Plan and Continental Casualty Company

(“Defendants”) with a Motion for Summary Judgment Re Contractual

Limitations. The motion is opposed at Docket 29. After full

consideration of the same, Defendants’ motion is denied.

II. Facts

Inasmuch as the facts are more than substantially briefed

within the relevant pleadings, they are not repeated herein except

as necessary.

SANDRA TINKER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VERSATA, INC. GROUP DISABILITY

INCOME INSURANCE PLAN and

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendants.

Case 2:06-cv-02906-JAM -KJM Document 35 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

2 Id. at 323-325.

3 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-9

(1986).

4 Id. at 255.

5 Id. at 248-9.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

2:06-CV-2906-RRB-PAN

III. Standard of Review

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine

dispute as to material facts and if the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. The moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact.1

 The

moving party need not present evidence; it need only point out the

lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact.2

 Once the moving

party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth

evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue

for trial.3 All evidence presented by the non-movant must be

believed for purposes of summary judgment, and all justifiable

inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.4 However, the

nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but

must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed

factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’

differing versions of the truth at trial.5 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02906-JAM -KJM Document 35 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 4
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

6 The Plan states in relevant part: “No legal action of any

kind may be filed against Us: . . . more than 3 years after proof

of Disability must be filled, unless the law in the state where You

live allows a longer period of time.” Docket 24 at 6 (citations

ommited)(emphasis in original) 

7 “California law allows four years to bring suit on

disability insurance policies.” Id. (citing Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers

Cadillac Group Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 648

(9th Cir. 2000); Mogck v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 292 F.3d

1025, 1027-1028 (9th Cir. 2002); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337)).

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

2:06-CV-2906-RRB-PAN

IV. Discussion

By the language of the contractual limitations period,

California’s four year statute of limitations on written contracts

is written into the insurance contract.6 Since Plaintiff Sandra

Tinker (“Plaintiff”) filed suit within four years of the earliest

possible accrual date, her cause of action is not time-barred.7

 In

making this determination, the Court is particularly persuaded by

Harris v. The Epoch Group, L.C., 357 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004),

which circuit decision is indistinguishable from the case at bar.

Moreover, even under a three-year limitations period,

Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s suit accrued more

than three years before she filed her action. Indeed, had

Defendants provided the actual 180 day appeal deadline that was

mandated by the Plan, Plaintiff likely would not have exhausted the

internal remedies until she submitted her physician’s amended

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02906-JAM -KJM Document 35 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 4
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

8 “Not knowing that she actually had 180 days to appeal,

[Plaintiff] appealed Continental’s decision within the false 60 day

deadline on July 14, 2003.” Id. at 3. Indeed, “Continental

misstated the timeline [sic] for filing an appeal (60 days instead

of 180 days) and failed to tell [Plaintiff] what evidence was

needed to perfect her claim.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added).

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

2:06-CV-2906-RRB-PAN

letter and Continental had then denied the appeal.8 Inasmuch as

the later did not occur until March 19, 2004, within three years of

the date Plaintiff filed her cause of action, i.e., on December 26,

2006, Plaintiff’s cause of action is not time-barred.

V. Conclusion

Based upon the aforesaid, and for additional reasons more

carefully articulated within the four corners Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Re

Contractual Limitations Period at Docket 24, Defendants’ Motion at

Docket 19 is hereby DENIED.

ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2008.

//s//

______________________________

RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02906-JAM -KJM Document 35 Filed 03/20/08 Page 4 of 4