630 Fed.Appx. 703 (9th Cir. 2015), 13-56796, National Life Insurance Co. v. Saks
|Docket Nº:||13-56796, 13-56901|
|Citation:||630 Fed.Appx. 703|
|Party Name:||NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees, v. LAWRENCE SAKS, M.D., Defendant-counter-claimant - Appellant. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. LAWRENCE SAKS, M.D., Defendant...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and CHRISTENSEN,[**] Chief District Judge.|
|Case Date:||November 18, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California November 3, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03061-GW-SS. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03061-GW-SS.
Before: W. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and CHRISTENSEN,[**] Chief District Judge.
Lawrence Saks appeals a jury verdict finding him liable for fraud and awarding National Life Insurance and Provident Insurance (NL/P) restitution for disability benefits and waived premiums that Saks wrongfully obtained. NL/P cross-appeals the jury's award to Saks on his counterclaim for breach of good faith and fair dealing, which the judge declined to vacate despite the jury's finding that Saks acted with unclean hands. We affirm.
1. The jury instructions erroneously stated that Saks could recover future benefits on his breach of contract claim and did not tell the jury that it could award future benefits on his breach of good faith claim. See Erreca v. W. States Life Ins. Co., 19 Cal.2d 388, 402, 121 P.2d 689 (1942); Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 24 Cal.3d 809, 824 n.7, 157 Cal.Rptr. 482, 598 P.2d 452 (1979). This legal error was harmless, however, because the only damages to which the jury found Saks was entitled were for mental suffering related to NL/P's investigation of his claim, and we have no reason to believe the jury would have awarded Saks future damages for mental distress based on a claim investigation that occurred about six years before the trial. See Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless error...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP