ARSDEL v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 46

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, )

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

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