N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LEO GAB R IELIAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LAFAYETTE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-56523 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-04694-B R O-E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NOONAN, a n d PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Le o Ga brie lia n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of La fay e tte Life Insura nc e C om pa ny . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED OCT 24 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. R e vie wing for a buse of disc re tion, Ye age r v . Bow lin , 693 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th C ir. 2012), we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in striking from Ga

brie l ia n’ s de c la ra tion his sta

te m e nt tha

t he re que ste d

to c onve rt his te rm life insura

nc e polic y

prior to thefive -y e ar polic y de a dline . Unde r the “ sha m a ffidav it” rule , “ a

pa rty c annot c re ate an issue of fa c t by an a ffidavit c o ntra dic ting his prior deposition te stim ony .” Id. at 1080. He re , Ga brie lia n’ s de position te stim ony

tha t he “ m ay have ” c o nta c te d La fay e tte prior to Nove m be r 11, 2010 is not in “ c l e ar and una m biguous”c onflic t with his la

te r de c la ra tion. Id. Nor doe s Ga

b rie lia n a ppe a r to ha ve sponta ne ously re c a lle d whe n he first c onta c te d La fay e tte re ga rding c onve rsion. R athe r, he re lie d on a le tte r he ha d writte n to La fay e tte tha t he found a fte r his de position a nd a tta c h e d to his de c la

ra tion. The se fa c t s distinguish Ga brie lia n’ s c a se from Ye age r , whe re the de pone nt c la im e d to re c a ll doz e n s of fa c t s on the ba sis of se v e ra l doc um e nts tha t he none the l e ss fa ile d to a

tta c h to a late r file d de c la

ra tion. Id. at

1081. Thedistric t struc k the de c la

ra tion be c a

use the inc onsiste nc ie s we re “ so e xtre m e ” a s to c onstitute c ontra dic t i on. Id . This is ha rdly the c a se he re . Whe n Ga brie lia n’ s de c l ara tion is c o nside re d fully , whe t he r he re que s te d c onve rsion prior to the

five -y e ar de a dline is a

tria ble issue of fa c t. It is fa

r from
2c le ar whe the r Ga b rie lia n wa s re quire d to submit a form a l a pplic ation for c onve rsion in orde r to e xe rc ise his right to c onve rt. The polic y doe s not a ddre ss what a c tion is re quire d a

nd the pa rtie s’ c ourse of c onduc t doe s not re solve the issue
. 2. Ga

brie lia n ha s a l so de m onstra

te d tha t the re are tria

ble issue s of m ate ria l fa c t re g arding whe the r La fay e tte prope rly pe rm itte d the polic y

to la pse for nonpa ym e nt. 1 La fa

y e tte doe s not a

rgue tha t a Pre a uthoriz e d W ithdra

w a l form (“ PAW ” ) is a

n inva lid m e thod of pa

ym e n t or tha

t Ga brie lia n’ s Ja nua ry 2011 PAW wa s untim e ly . R a t

h e r, La fay e tte argue s tha

t it rightfully

re je c te d the Ja

nua ry 2011 PAWbe c a

use it 1) fa i le d to spe c ify

a pre m ium am ount; 2) liste d a

n a dditiona l a c c ount with fluc tuating pre m i um pa ym e n ts; a nd 3) a uthoriz e d pa ym e nts to be gin only a fte r the e nd of the gra c e pe riod. Ga brie l ia n points to sev e ra l pre vious PAW s he subm itte d ove r the life of the polic y , howe ve r. Thre e out of the four pa st PAW s did not spe c ify an am ount, y e t we re a c c e pte d a

nd use d to se c ure pa

ym e nt. La fay e tte ’ s a c c e pta n c e and use of the PAW s is c onsiste nt with the a uthoriz ation a fforde d by

the PAW form itse lf, whic h

1 W e re vie w de novo a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to gra nt sum m ary judgm e nt. Mille nnium Labs., Inc . v . Ame ritox , Ltd ., 817 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th C ir. 2016). Whe n de c iding whe the r the re are any ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t in dispute , we vie wthe e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora b le to the nonm o ving pa

rty and dra w a ll re a s ona ble infe re nc e s in its fa

vor. Id. 3pe rm its La fay e tte to withdra w “ the ne c e ssa

ry am ount a s provide d in the polic y .” This broa d la

ngua ge c ould e a sily

e xte nd a uthoriz ation to a

n a c c ount with fluc tuating pre m ium s a s we ll. Furthe r, nothing in the

te xt of the polic y

or the form

would pre c l ude La fay e tte from

using theJa

n ua ry 2011 PAW

to pa y pa st-due pre m ium s . In fa c t, the l angua ge of the form

a uthoriz ing La fay e tte “ to pa y the pre m ium , re p ay

a loa n or c arry out the othe r purpose s sta te d he re in” c ould be c o nstrue d to a uthoriz e a s m uc h. Vie we d in the light m ost fa vora b le to Ga brie lia n, the e vide nc e re l ating to the PAW s is suffic ie nt to c re a t e ge nuine issue s of m at e ria l fa c t whe t he r the Ja nua ry 2011 PAW

c onstitute d pa

ym e n t of a ll pre m ium s due
. 3. Fina lly , we de c line to c onside r the issue s Ga brie lia n ra i se s for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Ge n e ra lly , we do not c o nside r ne w issue s unle ss a n e xc e p t ion a pplie s. B olk

e r v . C ommissione r , 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th C ir. 1985). Ga brie lia n argue s tha

t the issue s re ga

rding the 61-da

y gra c e pe riod a

nd e q uita ble e stoppe l for la c k of notic e fa ll into the e x c e ption for pure ly

le ga l issue s. Id. For the “ pure ly le ga l” e xc e ption to a

p ply , howe ve r, the fa c tua l re c ord m ust e i the r be irre le va

nt or fully de ve lope d
. Id . at

1042. He re , the re c o rd ha s not be e n fully de ve lope d on e ithe r issue . Ac c ordingly , the issue s ha v e be e n wa ive d
. 4RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with

this disposition.

5