In a Dissenting opinion, a 9th Circuit Judge Raps Cohabiting Couple.
The case stemmed from a 2001 accident in which a man, I'll call Jim dove from a boat owned by his live in Girlfriend I'll call Mary, into shallow water, causing him to become a quadriplegic, according to the court decision.
The couple had lived together for 20 months prior to the accident in "an intimate relationship," the decision said.
The legal trouble arose when "Jim" sought to claim the maximum benefit, $100,000, from "Mary's"' insurer, Continental. Citing a clause that barred members of the same household from receiving the maximum, Continental instead offered $25,000, saying a provision limited any claim by a "family member" to that amount. The policy contained language defining "family member" as "any member of the same household."
When Jim refused that offer, Continental asked the U.S. District Court to declare that Jim was entitled only to $25,000. But a federal judge ruled that the term "household" was ambiguous both by California case-law precedent, and as defined in standard and legal dictionaries.
Since precedent required "ambiguous" insurance contracts be interpreted in favor of the insured, the judge ruled against Continental, which appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The Senior Judge launched a vigorous dissent.
"It appears that "Jim" and "Mary have successfully attached more importance to a single piece of paper, a marriage license, than they have ever before," wrote the Judge. "For quite some time, they have dwelt under the same roof. They have bedded down together in the same bed. The couple apparently felt that they did not need this single piece of paper to enjoy all the bliss of conjugal life. Nevertheless, they earnestly maintain that a marriage license vel non is of great importance to the Continental Insurance Company."
Noting that "Jim" had sued "Mary" and that Mary's' counsel had advised her to "confess judgment" in that action, in their efforts to extract money from the insurer, The Judge quoted Holt v. Holt, 77 F2d 538, a 1935 appellate decision from the District of Columbia.
"In essence," he wrote, "they undertake to 'litigate by day and copulate by night.'"
I wonder if this Judge would have condemned the decision if this case involved a co-habituating homosexual couple rather than a co-habituating heterosexual couple.