ARSDEL v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, No. 5:2014cv02579 - Document 46 (E.D. Pa. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF (DOC. NO. 36) IS GRANTED BASED ON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN THE MEMORANDUM OPINION. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT (DOC. NO. 33) IS DENIED. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE DEFENDANT FOR REEVALUATION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE SEPARATELY-FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 3/30/17. 3/30/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, )

Download PDF
ARSDEL v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG VAN ARSDEL, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2579 ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2017, after considering (1) the motion for summary judgment, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of undisputed material facts filed by the defendant, Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Doc. Nos. 33-35), (2) the motion for summary judgment, supporting memorandum of law, and statement of undisputed material facts filed by the plaintiff, Craig Van Arsdel (Doc. No. 36), (3) the parties responses to the cross motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 42-44), and (4) the parties stipulation and attachments thereto (Doc. No. 32); and for the reasons set forth in the separately-filed memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED based on the grounds set forth in the memorandum opinion; 2. The motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED; 3. This matter is REMANDED to the defendant for reevaluation of the plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits in a manner consistent with the separately-filed memorandum opinion; and Dockets.Justia.com 4. The clerk of court is directed to mark this matter as CLOSED. 1 BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J. 1 The case could be subject to reopening if there is a subsequent appeal from the remand of this matter to the defendant. 2

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.