Entin v. Super. Ct. 8/20/12 CA2/7

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 2nd Appellate District » 2012 » Entin v. Super. Ct. 8/20/12 CA2/7

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: B239642

Case Date: 08/20/2012

Plaintiff: Entin

Defendant: Super. Ct. 8/20/12 CA2/7

Preview:Filed: 8/20/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

ALLEN M. ENTIN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.

No. B239642 (Super. Ct. No. LC030998)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael B. Harwin, Judge. Petition granted. Jacbos & Jacobs, Stanley K. Jacobs; Law Offices of Robert W. Eisfelder and Robert W. Eisfelder for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Barger & Wolen, Edwin A. Oster and Jenny H. Wang for Real Party in Interest.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION Petitioner Allen Entin owned two disability income insurance policies. In 2009, Entin filed a claim asserting that migraine headaches had rendered him totally disabled. Entins insurer, respondent Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, agreed to pay Entin benefits while investigating his claim. At the conclusion of its investigation, Provident filed a declaratory relief action seeking a determination that Entin was not totally disabled within the meaning of his policies. The complaint clarified that Provident would continue to pay Entin benefits during the pendency of the action and would not seek reimbursement of those payments. Entin requested a jury trial. The trial court denied the request, concluding that Providents claim was equitable in nature because Provident was continuing to pay Entin disability benefits during the pendency of the action. Entin filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the superior court to grant his request for a jury trial. We issued an order to show cause and now conclude that the trial court erred in denying Entin a jury trial. In the context of declaratory relief actions, the right to a jury trial depends on whether the issues raised in the complaint are legal or equitable in nature. Providents declaratory relief claim raises factual questions pertaining to contractual rights, which are legal in nature. Although Provident has elected to pay Entin benefits while pursuing the action, that does not transform the nature of the dispute into one arising in equity. Entin is therefore entitled to a jury trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In 1991, petitioner Allen Entin purchased a disability income insurance policy that provided benefits of $20,000 per month in the event that he became totally disabled. Entin also purchased an "overhead expense disability policy" that provided benefits up to $360,000 in the event that he became totally disabled. Both polices defined the term
1

This factual summary is based on the allegations in the parties pleadings. These facts are undisputed except where noted.

2

"totally disabled" to mean: "(1) [the insured is] not able to perform the substantial and material duties of [his] occupation; and [

Download B239642.PDF