AISHA ZRIHAN V. JAMES BUTWIN INS. TRUST FUND, No. 14-16080 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 02 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 14-16080 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01732-GMS Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM* And AISHA ZRIHAN, Intervenor-Plaintiff Appellant, v. JAMES BUTWIN INSURANCE TRUST FUND, Trustees of Caryn Butwin Sokol and Sandra Butwin; et al., Defendants - Appellees, And CAROL DULIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Yafit Butwin and HARVEY A. COLEMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James C. Butwin, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 10, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Aisha Zrihan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to her deceased son-in-law’s family members in a dispute over life insurance proceeds.1 We dismiss this appeal for lack of standing. Zrihan has no personal claim to the insurance proceeds. She was not an insured, owner, or beneficiary on either of the policies. Zrihan’s daughter was a named beneficiary, but the daughter’s estate did not appeal the district court’s order. Zrihan’s status as her daughter’s heir does not confer standing because, under Arizona law, only the personal representative of an estate may bring claims on behalf of the estate. See In re Tamer’s Estate, 179 P. 643, 644 (Ariz. 1919); City of Phoenix v. Linsenmeyer, 280 P.2d 698, 699 (Ariz. 1955). Nor can Zrihan claim the insurance proceeds as James’s creditor. James was not a named beneficiary on either policy. 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here. 2 And Arizona law precludes Zrihan from contesting formal defects in James’s contingent beneficiary designation. See, e.g., Doss v. Kalas, 383 P.2d 169, 172 (Ariz. 1963). DISMISSED. 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.
