Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 11-1088
IVAN GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00706-WMN)
Submitted:
DIAZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
This is a dispute regarding the cancellation of Ivan
Goldsteins life insurance policy (the Policy), issued by The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company.
On appeal, Goldstein
In the
required
cancellation.
under
the
prior
to
the
Policys
assuming arguendo
Policy,
Lincoln
National
Policy,
despite
his
reinstatement.
Policy
National
legitimately
wrongfully
compliance
failed
with
the
to
cancelled
the
reinstate
the
Policys
terms
of
respect
to
Goldsteins
first
claim,
Goldstein
proffer
sufficient
evidence
to
create
genuine
issue
of
before
Lincoln
Policy.
We agree.
National
could
effectively
cancel
the
See Benner,
M.D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 1228, 1234 (4th Cir.
1996) (under Maryland law, rebuttable presumption of delivery
and receipt of mail arises when material is properly mailed);
id.
(Evidence
of
ordinary
business
practices
concerning
the
also
establishes
evidence
to
create
whether
he
received
Specifically,
that
proffered
issue
material
genuine
Goldstein
the
Goldstein
grace
of
period
proffered
his
sufficient
fact
notice
own
sworn
at
as
to
issue.
affidavit
notice
should
have
arrived
in
his
home
mailbox
and
he
See Border v.
was
properly
mailed
to
him;
rather,
such
testimony
sworn
denial
of
3
receipt
suffices
to
meet
received
the
grace
period
notice
to
which
he
was
effectively
courts
entry
respect
to
of
his
cancel
the
judgment
Policy,
in
wrongful
favor
we
of
cancellation
vacate
Lincoln
claim
the
district
National
and
remand
with
for
further proceedings.
With
respect
to
Goldsteins
alternative
claim
no
reasoning
reversible
of
the
error.
district
Accordingly,
court
with
we
respect
affirm
to
that
on
the
claim.
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.