Opinion ID: 77298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Real Estate Occupation

Text: 32 This conclusion, however, does not prevent Giddens from recovering benefits if he was totally disabled from his real estate occupation. In the district court, Equitable asserted that Giddens's real estate endeavor was merely a passive investment and not an occupation. The district court rejected that argument, and concluded that Giddens had a real estate occupation, stating that 33 the only evidence now in the record as it relates to Dr. Giddens' involvement in real estate development shows that his activities went well beyond that of a casual investor who simply places money in a given commodity with hopes of an appreciation in value. Rather, it shows that he had significant administrative duties in connection with that enterprise. 34 Giddens, 356 F.Supp.2d at 1328. The district court also explained that Equitable had failed to cite any authority holding that an enterprise engaged in for profit cannot constitute one's `regular occupation' when it is subjectively perceived by the insured (or his agents) as an `investment.' Id. 35 On appeal, Equitable does not challenge the district court's determination that Giddens had a real estate occupation and was involved in that occupation at the time of his disability. Rather, in the district court and on appeal Equitable argues (1) that issues of fact exist as to what the substantial and material duties of Giddens's real estate occupation actually were, (2) that the Policies require that Giddens must be unable to perform all of those substantial and material duties in order to be totally disabled, and (3) that Giddens failed to prove he was disabled from all such duties. We turn to those issues. 36