Timothy Mort v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
444 F. App'x 208
9th Cir.2011Background
- Mort alleges entitlement to higher monthly benefits under his long-term disability policy from United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.
- Disability began February 2008; benefit is 60% of Mort’s basic monthly earnings as of that date.
- Basic monthly earnings are defined by the policy with specific averaging and verification rules.
- United calculated benefits by averaging Mort’s gross income for 2006–2007, then applying the 60% formula.
- Mort argues 2007 income should be excluded and that verification and classification provisions constrain United’s calculation.
- District court granted United’s summary judgment; Mort appeals; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and applying Oregon law on contract interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2007 income is included in basic monthly earnings. | Mort argues 2007 income should be excluded. | United contends the policy requires averaging 2006–2007 and 2007 is verified by premium. | Yes, 2007 income included; interpretation reasonable under policy terms. |
| Whether the verification clause bars use of income not officially accepted. | Mort argues verification requires accepted premiums. | United may use premiums received to verify income; refund does not negate verification. | No; receipt of premium suffices for verification under policy. |
| Whether the classification-change provision modifies basic monthly earnings calculation. | Mort asserts the change provision affects when income alters benefits. | Provision does not modify earnings definition or calculation method. | Provision does not modify basic monthly earnings; calculation remains per definition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Republic Indem. Co. of Am., 147 P.3d 329 (Or. 2006) (verification-phrase interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 836 P.2d 703 (Or. 1992) (contract interpretation; plausible interpretations assessed in context)
- Alexander Mfg. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2009) (when a term has one reasonable meaning, no ambiguity remains)
- City of L.A. v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 2011) (review of summary judgment; de novo; diversity-based jurisdiction)