Karpenski v. American General Life Companies, LLC
999 F. Supp. 2d 1218
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Karpenski sues US Life for breach of contract, bad faith, and IFCA arising from a disability insurance policy issued to APTA.
- Master Policy is governed by Virginia law; certificate issued May 1, 2009; certificate states it is mere evidence of coverage.
- Welcome Packet allegedly lacked a copy of Karpenski’s signed Disability Application; timing of first premium is disputed.
- Karpenski filed a claim in 2009; insurer conducted contestable review and denied benefits in 2010, rescinding coverage for undisclosed conditions.
- Case removed to federal court on diversity grounds; court bifurcated proceedings and stayed discovery on bad faith claims pending adjudication of breach/rescission.
- Court denied Plaintiff’s partial summary judgment on admissibility in part, and deferred the remaining issues under Virginia law pending further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia law governs attachment/admissibility of the application | Washington public policy should apply | Virginia law governs under master policy | Virginia law governs; application admissible |
| Whether the mischaracterized errata/jurats are admissible or sham | Errata are proper corrections under Rule 30(e) | Errata are sham and create genuine issues | Errata/jurats for Labinsky, Jarvis, and Keatts are sham and struck |
| Whether Labinsky declaration should be struck as sham | Labinsky declaration contradicts deposition | Declaration addresses materiality and is not pure contradiction | Declaration not struck; not direct contradiction |
| Whether remaining claims should be adjudicated under Virginia law or deferred | Virginia law favors plaintiff on contract-related issues | Virginia law governs remaining rescission/breach/good health issues | Remaining claims deferred for Virginia-law briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Boseman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 301 U.S. 196 (1937) (certificate governs individual rights, not policy terms)
- Whitaker v. Spiegel, Inc., 95 Wash.2d 408 (Wash. 1981) (public policy conflicts in choice-of-law analysis)
- Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (sham affiants and late deposition corrections considered)
- Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991) (sham-errata considerations; corrections not to create disputes)
- Fittro v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 111 Wash.2d 46 (Wash. 1988) (certificate vs master policy terminologies in attachment)
- Erickson v. Sentry Life Ins. Co., 43 Wash. App. 651 (Wash. App. 1986) (rights under a group policy and governing law)
- Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Donati, 114 S.E.2d 595 (Va. 1960) (Virginia attachment/statutory framework and admissibility)