United States District Court, D. Arizona
Russel Holland United States District Judge.
for Partial Summary Judgment
moves for partial summary judgment. This motion is
opposed. Oral argument was requested and has been
Ramon Chacon's father, Matthew Chacon ("Mr.
Chacon"), applied for a life insurance policy with
defendant Ohio State Life Insurance Company on January 3,
2001. Defendant issued a $400, 000 policy to Mr. Chacon which
became effective on February 1, 2001.
Chacon's policy defined a "beneficiary" as
The beneficiary receives the death benefit of this policy
upon the death of the insured. The beneficiary of this policy
is named in the application unless a new beneficiary is later
named, subject to the terms of the Change of Beneficiary
If no named beneficiary survives the insured, then you or -
in the event of your death - your estate will be named as the
application, which was considered part of the insurance
contract,  Mr. Chacon designated his
"primary" beneficiaries as: 1) "Aurora Chacon
- spouse 50%[, ]" 2) "Israel Chacon - son 25% Aurora
Chacon to be trustee until son becomes of legal age[, ]"
and 3) "Estate - of Mathew [sic] Chacon
25%[.]" Although the application gave Mr. Chacon
the option of naming contingent beneficiaries, Mr. Chacon did
not name any contingent beneficiaries. The beneficiary
section of the application provides that "[s]ubject to
applicable law, surviving beneficiaries of a stated class
will share equally unless otherwise
Chacon died on February 28, 2002, within the two-year
contestability period. His wife, Aurora, was appointed the
personal representative of his estate. In March 2002,
defendant notified Mrs. Chacon that it would be conducting a
contestability review before it paid any benefits under Mr.
Chacon's policy. In April 2002, Mrs. Chacon submitted
claim forms on behalf of all the beneficiaries. Defendant
determined that Mr. Chacon had made material
misrepresentations on his application and thus defendant
rescinded the policy and denied the claims that Mrs. Chacon
had submitted. After the claims were denied, Mrs. Chacon took
no further action on behalf of any of the beneficiaries.
November 2013, after he reached legal age, plaintiff
commenced this action in which he asserts a breach of
contract claim and a claim for bad faith.
now moves for summary judgment limiting plaintiff's
damages for his breach of contract claim to $100, 000.
judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The initial burden is on
the moving party to show that there is an absence of genuine
issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party meets its
initial burden, then the non-moving party must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary
judgment, the court views the evidence of the non-movant in
the light most favorable to that party, and all justifiable
inferences are also to be drawn in its favor. Id. at
255. "[T]he court's ultimate inquiry is to determine
whether the 'specific facts' set forth by the
nonmoving party, coupled with undisputed background ...