Gabrielian v. Lafayette Life Insurance Co.
669 F. App'x 889
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gabrielian held a term life policy with Lafayette that included a conversion right within five years; dispute arose over whether he timely exercised that right and whether the policy lapsed for nonpayment.
- Gabrielian submitted a declaration stating he requested conversion before the five-year deadline; his earlier deposition had indicated he “may have” contacted Lafayette before that date.
- After his deposition, Gabrielian located and attached a letter he had written to Lafayette supporting his declaration.
- Lafayette allowed several prior Preauthorized Withdrawal (PAW) forms to be used without specified amounts and rejected Gabrielian’s January 2011 PAW, claiming defects (no amount, alternate account with fluctuating premiums, and authorization to start after the grace period).
- The district court struck portions of Gabrielian’s declaration as sham and granted summary judgment for Lafayette; Gabrielian appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly struck Gabrielian’s declaration under the sham-affidavit rule | Gabrielian says his declaration (supported by a located letter) shows he requested conversion before the five-year deadline | Lafayette contends the declaration contradicts Gabrielian’s deposition and is therefore a sham | Reversed: court abused its discretion striking the declaration; deposition not in clear and unambiguous conflict with the declaration, creating a triable fact issue |
| Whether Gabrielian timely exercised conversion (what action is required to convert) | Gabrielian argues his actions/communications sufficed to exercise conversion rights | Lafayette implies a formal application was required and was not submitted | Remanded: policy ambiguous and parties’ conduct does not resolve what action was required; triable issue remains |
| Whether Lafayette properly rejected the January 2011 PAW and allowed the policy to lapse for nonpayment | Gabrielian notes prior PAWs without amounts were accepted and the PAW form authorizes necessary withdrawals and past-due payments | Lafayette argues the January PAW failed to specify amount, referenced fluctuating account, and authorized withdrawals only after grace period | Reversed: facts viewed favorably to Gabrielian create genuine issues whether the January 2011 PAW constituted payment of premiums; summary judgment improper |
| Whether appellate review should reach arguments raised for first time on appeal (61‑day grace period and equitable estoppel for lack of notice) | Gabrielian asks the court to address these as purely legal issues despite not raising them below | Lafayette responds that issues were not preserved and record is incomplete | Affirmed waiver: court declines to consider new issues because record is not fully developed for the purely legal exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (sham-affidavit rule prohibits creating fact issues by affidavit contradicting prior deposition unless conflict isn’t clear and unambiguous)
- Millennium Labs., Inc. v. Ameritox, Ltd., 817 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment review standard; view evidence for nonmoving party)
- Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985) (exceptions to considering arguments raised for first time on appeal; purely legal issue exception requires fully developed or irrelevant factual record)
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.