From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Kelly v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Southern California
734 F.Supp.2d 1085 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Kelly (plaintiff) obtained two own-occupation disability insurance policies from Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. (Provident) (defendant). The policy allowed Kelly to claim total disability if he became unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his occupation and underwent a physician’s care. In May 1986, Kelly went under the care of a psychologist. Kelly thereafter filed an insurance claim for total disability and received disability benefits for the next thirteen years. During this period, Blochl, a representative of Provident, suspected Kelly had been working while receiving disability benefits and so informed law enforcement authorities. Provident later admitted that Kelly had previously disclosed to Provident that he was still performing some work and had provided copies of his business records. On August 18, 1999, Provident determined Kelly was not disabled and informed him it would terminate his benefits. In November 2000, Provident brought suit against Kelly alleging fraud, but agreed to put the lawsuit on hold pending settlement negotiations. On April 11, 2001, Kelly found that a default judgment had been entered against him. As a result, Kelly began drinking heavily and considered suicide. Kelly eventually settled with Provident by agreeing to forfeit his claim to disability benefits in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit. Kelly subsequently brought the present suit against Provident for rescission of the settlement agreement. Kelly argued that he agreed to settle in the earlier action because he lacked the mental and emotional capacity to handle the lawsuit. Kelly further presented the testimony of a professor of psychology, who opined that Kelly suffered from Avoidant Personality Disorder, which caused Kelly to be unduly susceptible to pressure. Provident moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hayes, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.