Marantz v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that any “procedural foibles” the insurer “may have made are irrelevant on appeal”
• noting that, in conducting de novo review, the district court could consider a surveillance video as proper evidence even if the insurer failed to do so in its decision letters because the court possessed an obligation to conduct an “independent decision” as to coverage
• “We will not disturb the district court’s factual findings after it has weighed the evidence on both sides unless, after considering all of the evidence, this court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).