legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Rosen v. Pacific Life Insurance Co. CA4/3
Plaintiff Peggy Rosen (Rosen) claimed life insurance proceeds after her husband passed away. Defendant Pacific Life Insurance Company (Pacific Life) denied the claim on the ground the policy had lapsed for lack of payment. Rosen sued, arguing she, as the beneficiary, should have been given notice before the policy was terminated. The court entered summary judgment in favor of Pacific Life, finding Rosen was not entitled to notice. Rosen appealed.
The sole issue on appeal is whether Rosen was entitled to notice of the pending lapse as an “other person having an interest in the individual life insurance policy” under Insurance Code section 10113.71, subdivision (b)(1). We conclude she was not and affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale