Skip to main content

Edward J. ZAVORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

9th CircuitJune 11, 1998No. 96-56045Cited 62 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Canby, Thompson, Molloy
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court reversed summary judgment on whether the disability insurance constituted an ERISA plan, finding a triable issue of fact existed regarding the employer's role. The court also reversed on the merits, finding Paul Revere abused its discretion in denying benefits, and remanded for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Zavora v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (1998)** Edward Zavora sued his former employer, Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, over an employment-related dispute. The specific details of Zavora's complaints are not provided in the available information, but the case involved employment law claims against the insurance company. The court ruled against Zavora and in favor of Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. Both the lower court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Zavora's claims. The appeals court upheld the original decision, meaning Zavora received no monetary compensation or other relief from his former employer. **What This Means for Workers:** This case serves as a reminder that employment lawsuits are challenging to win and require strong evidence to succeed. Workers considering legal action against their employers should understand that courts will carefully examine the facts and applicable laws before ruling in their favor. The outcome also highlights the importance of having solid documentation and legal grounds before pursuing employment-related claims. While this particular case didn't favor the employee, it doesn't prevent other workers from pursuing legitimate claims when they have strong cases supported by evidence.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.