Sylvia Fisher, Legal Guardian of Ervin Lamarr Agee, Iv., Aminor v. Monumental Life Insurance Company, a Maryland Corporation

*The Honorable Thomas B. Russell, District Judge for the Western District of Kentucy, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0317n.06
Filed: April 26, 2005
Case No. 03-2407
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA FISHER, LEGAL GUARDIAN OF
ERVIN LAMARR AGEE, IV., A MINOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MONUMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation;
DIRECT RESPONSE INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., a
Minnesota Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges; RUSSELL,* District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Sylvia Fisher, Legal Guardian of Beneficiary
Ervin Lamarr Agee, IV., a minor, (“Fisher”) appeals the district court’s Order denying summary
judgment to Fisher and granting summary judgment to Monumental Life Insurance Company
(“Monumental”) and Direct Response Insurance Administrative Services, Inc. on Fisher’s breach
of contract claim arising out of Monumental’s denial of death benefits under an accidental death
insurance policy applied for by her daughter (“Decedent”). The district court held that the language
of the insurance policy clearly and unambiguously required Decedent to pay her first premium
before coverage became effective under the policy, and that because Decedent died before making

-- 1 of 2 --

2
her first premium payment, Monumental was not obligated to pay the benefits and its refusal to do
so did not constitute a breach of the insurance contract. The district court further held that the
unambiguous language of the policy stated that the policy was issued in consideration of the
payment of the premiums provided for in the policy’s terms, and because the premium was not paid,
the insurance contract was void and could not be enforced against Monumental. Finally, the district
court held that Fisher had failed to provide any evidence to support her alternative claim of estoppel.
After carefully reviewing the record presented to us on appeal, the applicable law and the
parties’ briefs, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The record
demonstrates that no material facts remain in dispute, and the district court’s opinion carefully and
correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying
its decision. Issuance of a full written opinion by this court, therefore, would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --