Seidenberg v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 26 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 95-5946(AJL). |
| Citation | 949 F.Supp. 269 |
| Parties | Miriam SEIDENBERG, Plaintiff, v. The MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
George B. Gelman, Ross & Hardies, Somerset, NJ, for Plaintiff.
B. John Pendleton, McCarter & English, Newark, NJ, for Defendant.
This is a breach of contract action brought by plaintiff, Miriam Seidenberg ("Miriam Seidenberg"), against defendant, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York ("MONY"). Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and appears to be proper.
Miriam Seidenberg alleges MONY wrongfully and deliberately denied her benefits of a life insurance policy that was issued by MONY to her daughter, Phyllis Seidenberg ("Phyllis Seidenberg"). Miriam Seidenberg seeks recovery of the face value of the life insurance policy, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees.
On 19 October 1995, Miriam Seidenberg filed a two count complaint (the "Complaint"), in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, alleging breach of the terms of an insurance policy and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and an unfair trade practice in violation of N.J.S.A. 17B:30-13.1. On 21 November 1995, MONY removed the matter to this court.
Miriam Seidenberg and MONY submitted cross motions for summary judgment (the "Seidenberg Motion for Summary Judgment Motion" and the "MONY Motion for Summary Judgment").1 The parties also submitted a joint stipulation of facts, with Exhibits A through O attached (the "Joint Stipulation of Facts"). For the reasons set forth below, the Seidenberg Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; the MONY Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Miriam Seidenberg, a resident of New Jersey, is the mother of Phyllis Seidenberg, the deceased. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 1. Miriam Seidenberg is the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by MONY to Phyllis Seidenberg on 5 December 1983. Id.
Phyllis Seidenberg was a chiropractor with her practice located in Metuchen, New Jersey. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 7. On 10 December 1982, MONY issued an Overhead Expense Policy, number 82X1-30-84 (the "Overhead Expense Policy") to Phyllis Seidenberg. Id., ¶ 14. Phyllis Seidenberg paid the annual premiums for the Overhead Expense Policy in the amount of $288.00 up through and including the premium due on 10 December 1993. See Payment History for Overhead Expense Policy, attached as Exhibit C to Joint Stipulation of Facts.
On 5 December 1983, Phyllis Seidenberg purchased a whole life insurance policy, number 1148-70-06 (the "Insurance Policy"), issued by MONY. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 1. The Insurance Policy lists a face value of $250,000, payable upon proof of death of the insured. Insurance Policy at 5, attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Stipulation of Facts. The Insurance Policy required Phyllis Seidenberg to make annual premium payments of $5,130.00 on 5 December of each year. Insurance Policy at 5. Phyllis Seidenberg paid all premiums in the amount of $5,130.00 due under the Insurance Policy from 5 December 1983 until, but not including, 5 December 1993. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶¶ 10-11.
Phyllis Seidenberg also purchased an optional Waiver of Premium (the "Waiver of Premium") as an additional benefit rider to the Insurance Policy. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 8. The Waiver of Premium operates to waive payment of the insurance premium if the purchaser incurs a total disability that "continues with no interruption during the [i]nsured's lifetime for [six] months." Insurance Policy at 15.
On 20 January 1994, Phyllis Seidenberg died from ovarian carcinoma at the age of forty-three. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 22. She was survived by her husband, Miroslav Spireng ("Spireng"), her mother, Miriam Seidenberg, and her brother, Robert Seidenberg ("Robert Seidenberg"). See 5 June 1995 Settlement Agreement between Spireng and the Estate of Phyllis Seidenberg (the "Settlement Agreement"), attached as Exhibit K to Joint Stipulation of Facts.2
On 1 June 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg sought treatment from a medical doctor for persistent pain in her pelvic area. Complaint, ¶ 9. A pelvic scan performed on that date revealed Phyllis Seidenberg suffered from ovarian cysts, which were diagnosed as benign. Id.
On 7 October 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg again sought medical treatment for pain in the pelvic region. Id., ¶ 10. Tests performed between 20 October 1993 and 22 October 1993 revealed the ovarian cysts were malignant. Id. She was admitted to Lenox Hill Hospital for further testing on 29 October 1993, where the presence of a large malignant ovarian tumor was confirmed. Id.
On 1 November 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg closed her chiropractic offices and ceased to practice her profession in order to devote herself to treatment of her pelvic carcinoma. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 13.
On 15 November 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg filed a claim of disability on her Overhead Expense Policy (the "Overhead Expense Claim"). Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 15. The Overhead Expense Claim was acknowledged in a letter, dated 1 December 1993, from MONY's Senior Disability Specialist, Ray Hahn (the "1 December 1993 Letter"). 1 December 1993 Letter, attached as Exhibit E to the Joint Stipulation of Facts. As instructed by the 1 December 1993 Letter, Phyllis Seidenberg completed and submitted an "Insured's Disability/Incapacity Statement" to MONY in support of her Overhead Expense Claim. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 18; Insured's Disability/Incapacity Statement, attached as Exhibit F to the Joint Stipulation of Facts.
On 3 November 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg traveled to Mexico to seek medical treatment. Complaint, ¶ 11. On or about 10 November 1993, she returned to the United States and sought further medical treatment. Id., ¶ 12. Exploratory surgery was performed. Id. Phyllis Seidenberg's condition was diagnosed as inoperable. Id.
Miriam Seidenberg accompanied Phyllis Seidenberg to Mexico on 8 December 1993 for further medical treatment. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 19. They returned to the United States on or about 6 January 1994. Id.
On 16 January 1994, after a brief stay at her brother's home, Phyllis Seidenberg was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Joint Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 22. Phyllis Seidenberg died on 20 January 1994. Id.
On 16 November 1993, MONY sent Phyllis Seidenberg its standard "Payment Due" Notice for the Insurance Policy premium, due on 5 December 1993 (the "5 December Payment"). Id., ¶ 20; see also Payment Due Notice, attached as Exhibit G to the Joint Stipulation of Facts. When the 5 December Payment was not received, MONY sent a Notice of Lapse and Restoration Offer (the "Notice of Lapse") on 15 January 1994 to the chiropractic office of Phyllis Seidenberg, which was the address of record with MONY. Id., ¶ 21.
MONY sent a final Notice of Policy Lapse ("Final Notice of Lapse") to the chiropractic office of Phyllis Seidenberg on 2 February 1994. Id., ¶ 24. The Final Notice of Lapse indicated the Policy had lapsed from the $250,000 face value to the reduced, paid-up sum of $105,795. Id.; Final Notice of Lapse, attached as Exhibit I to Joint Stipulation of Facts. Prior to the onset of her illness in November 1993, Phyllis Seidenberg paid all annual premiums on the policy in timely fashion. Id., ¶ 10.
From 1 November 1993 until her death on 20 January 1994, Phyllis Seidenberg was totally disabled as that term is defined in the Waiver of Premium provision. Id., ¶ 23. Miriam Seidenberg now seeks to recover the full amount of the policy ($250,000) from MONY. MONY maintains that Miriam Seidenberg is only entitled to the "paid-up" amount of the policy ($105,795), because the policy had lapsed and the final premium was not paid. Miriam Seidenberg argues that because Phyllis Seidenberg was disabled for approximately two and one-half months prior to her death, the Waiver of Premium operated to continue the policy in full effect. MONY argues that, in order for the Waiver of Premium to be effective, Phyllis Seidenberg must have been continuously disabled for a period of six months during her lifetime.3
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The present task is to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A district court may not resolve factual disputes in a motion for summary judgment. Linan-Faye Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth., 49 F.3d 915, 926-27 (3d Cir. 1995) () (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)); Desvi, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 968 F.2d 307, 308 (3d Cir.1992) () (citations omitted).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, all evidence submitted must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Globe Life Ins. Co.
...coverage.”). However, the court must not write a better contract than the one the parties entered into. Seidenberg v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York,949 F.Supp. 269, 276 (D.N.J.1996), aff'd,135 F.3d 766 (3d Cir.1997); Am. Cas. Co. of Reading Pennsylvania v. Resolution Trust Corp.,839 F.Supp......
-
In re Air Nail Co., Inc.
...497 (citing St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 935 F.2d 1428, 1431 (3rd Cir.1991)); see also Seidenberg v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 949 F.Supp. 269, 274 (D.N.J.1996) (same); Niederer, 234 Cal.Rptr. at 787 (same); Industrial Indemnity, 275 Cal.Rptr. at 220 (same), whic......
-
In re Carretta
...and Cas. Ins. Co., 828 F.Supp. 275, 283 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 993 F.2d 877 (3d Cir.1993) (citation omitted); Seidenberg v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 949 F.Supp. 269, 276 (D.N.J.1996), aff'd without opinion; Nester v. O'Donnell, 301 N.J.Super. 198, 210, 693 A.2d 1214 (App. Div.1997) (citation omi......
-
Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ahatov
...we fail to see how this establishes that the provisions are confusing and ambiguous. See id.; see also Seidenberg v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York , 949 F.Supp. 269 (D.N.J. 1996), aff'd, 135 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 1997) (noting, "[a]n insurance policy is not ambiguous, however, merely because......