Bushnell v. Medico Insurance Company

159 Wash. App. 874, 246 P.3d 856 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bushnell v. Medico Insurance Company

Washington Court of Appeals
159 Wash. App. 874, 246 P.3d 856 (2011)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Leroy Bushnell (plaintiff), on behalf of his mother, Evelyn Bushnell, purchased a long-term care insurance policy for Evelyn from Medico Insurance Company (defendant). Evelyn’s policy was effective starting in 1986. The Medico policy covered skilled nursing care in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) but required that the insured have a three-day hospital stay immediately preceding admission to the SNF. The Medico policy was effective for a year-long term and renewed each successive year as a new year-long contract. The Medico policy also contained a conformation clause stating that the policy would amend itself to comply with state law. In 1988, Washington law was amended to forbid long-term care insurance companies from requiring prior hospitalization as a condition of coverage. In addition, the Medico policy had a 20-day elimination period during which SNF care would not be covered if the policy holder failed to pay the premium; however, the 20-day elimination period only started after the expiration of the policy’s 30-day grace period. Evelyn paid her premiums on time for 20 years. Leroy started paying Evelyn’s premiums for her in January 2007. Leroy paid the premium for March 2007 late, but within the 30-day grace period. On the recommendation of Evelyn’s doctor, Evelyn was admitted to an SNF on February 24, 2007. Leroy submitted a claim for coverage to Medico on Evelyn’s behalf. Medico denied Evelyn’s claim, stating that (1) Evelyn had failed to complete the required three-day hospital stay prior to SNF admission; (2) Washington’s 1988 law banning prior hospitalization requirements was inapplicable because Evelyn’s policy commenced in 1986; and (3) coverage had lapsed for nonpayment. Leroy challenged, arguing that (a) Medico’s prior hospitalization requirement violated Washington law; (b) the 1988 Washington law applied to Evelyn’s Medico policy even though coverage started in 1986 because the policy renewed under a new contract each year; and (c) coverage did not lapse because Leroy paid the March 2007 premium within the grace period. The trial court dismissed Leroy’s claim. Leroy appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Schindler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership