Unpublished Disposition, 880 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 880 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1987)

Mary M. GRAN; Susan E. Gran, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.TRW, INC., a corporation, its agents, servants and/oremployees; TRW Electronics & Defense Sector, a corporation,its agents, servants and/or employees; Aetna InsuranceCompany; Milton H. Gran, individually and as an employee ofTRW Electronics & Defense Sector, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-1895.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  June 29, 1989.Decided July 17, 1989.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, PREGERSON and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.


The trial court properly found as an undisputed fact that Susan "is currently covered by her father's group insurance." Appellants' unsupported allegations that "insurance coverage for Susan Gran was terminated on May 21, 1987 along with child support" and that "Aetna Insurance paid no claims submitted by plaintiffs after April, 1985" are flatly contradicted by affidavits of a manager of TRW's Benefits Administration Department. Appellants assert these affidavits are false. Appellants might have created a disputed issue of fact by filing affidavits of their own, but chose not to do so.

26 U.S.C. § 162(k) does entitle Susan to continue her medical benefits upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" under Sec. 162(k) (3). According to TRW, a qualifying event occurs if Susan reaches age 25, ceases being a full-time student, marries or otherwise becomes ineligible. No such event has occurred, and thus, Susan's rights under Sec. 162(k) have not yet ripened.

Appellants express concern that Susan may be ineligible because her father does not pay enough of her support to qualify her as his dependent. TRW filed affidavits attesting that Susan currently is covered by her father's Group Health Plan with TRW, and Aetna Life Insurance Co. filed an affidavit attesting that TRW determines eligibility and Aetna will administer Susan's claims until TRW informs it she is not eligible.

Summary judgment was properly granted.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.