Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance v. James Butwin Insurance Trust Fund ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 02 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY No. 14-16080
INSURANCE COMPANY,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01732-GMS
Plaintiff,
And MEMORANDUM*
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