Opinion ID: 1293438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: policy ambiguity

Text: In his second assignment of error, Livingston argues that the district court erred in finding that the 1965 LTD policy was not ambiguous and that it provided him with the same benefits he was currently receiving. Having concluded that MUD had the authority to modify the LTD policy at issue, any change in Livingston's benefits was permissible. We need not, therefore, decide whether the 1965 policy benefits would be the same as Livingston's current benefits. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. Anderson v. Bellino , 265 Neb. 577, 658 N.W.2d 645 (2003).