Lao Translation & Lao Interpreter Services to Prove a Death in Laos
Court Delays Ruling on Breach of Insurance Contract Claim Following Death in Laos; Plaintiffs Given Time to Resubmit Evidence of Insured’s Death
We’ve blogged about the importance of certified document translation for international life insurance claims that hinge on proving the death of the insured in a foreign land. Honnevk v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., involved a breach of insurance contract lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Frisco Honnevk (the insured’s cousin) and Boualai Vongphachanh (the insured’s spouse), both beneficiaries of a life insurance policy issued by Farmers New World Insurance Company (“Farmers”) for the life of Somporn Phasavo. The family alleged that Farmers had failed to pay the insurance proceeds after they submitted claims following Phasavo’s alleged death. The family’s complaint includes claims for both breach of contract and bad faith.
Somporn Phasavo was insured under a policy that provided a death benefit of $150,000, with Honnevk and Vongphachanh named as beneficiaries. The family filed claims based on Phasavo’s death, but the dates and circumstances of death were inconsistent across various statements. The family initially reported the death as occurring from a car accident on August 28, 2008, but later filings indicated a different date and location, with conflicting statements from various witnesses. An English translation of Laotian death certificate issued in Laos and documents from the U.S. Embassy in Laos were submitted, but the death certificate’s authenticity was questioned.
An investigation by the insurer revealed contradictions in the evidence, including uncertainty about how Phasavo’s remains were identified and by whom. Ultimately, the insurer denied the claim, citing the lack of sufficient evidence, and the family contested the decision. They presented additional documents translated from Laotian to English, including testimonies from villagers and soldiers who claimed to have found Phasavo’s body in September 2008 and identified personal effects that corroborated his identity. These witnesses were expected to testify at trial.
Summary Judgment and Burden of Proof
To understand the case, it is important to understand summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party must inform the court of the basis for their motion and provide evidence from sources such as pleadings, depositions, or affidavits showing the absence of a factual dispute. If the moving party meets this initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists, supported by evidence like affidavits or admissible discovery materials. The opposing party must show that the fact in dispute is material and genuine, meaning it could impact the case’s outcome. Summary judgment aims to assess the proof and determine if a trial is needed. In ruling, the court considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Farmers argued that the family could not provide admissible evidence of Phasavo’s death, which was required under the insurance policy. Farmers focused on the term “admissible,” claiming issues with the authentication and hearsay nature of their evidence.
What Constitutes “Due Proof of Death” in California?
The central issue in the case was – what constitutes “due proof of death” in California?
The court did not find relevant California case law and Farmers asked to adopt the approach from Minh Tu, where the First Circuit defined “due proof” as sufficient evidence to reasonably support the insurer’s decision to pay the claim. However, Minh Tu did not mandate a specific type of evidence (e.g., a death certificate) and emphasized the need for admissible evidence at trial.
The court recognized that objections to the admissibility of evidence based on hearsay or authentication are generally waived unless it is clear the evidence could not be admitted at trial. Although the Laotian death certificate was deemed inadmissible, the court considered other facts presented by the family to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact about Phasavo’s death existed. The court assessed whether this evidence could be admissible at trial.
Evaluation of the Evidence from Laos
The court found that the family may meet the requirement of proving the insured’s death by a preponderance of the evidence. Despite the lack of specific California case law on this issue, the court determined that the discovery of a dead body with documents, such as a California Driver’s License and Passport, that identify the individual as Phasavao, could be sufficient evidence. There was no indication that the documents were fraudulent or belonged to someone else. If the facts about the identification of the body could be established through witness testimony, they would be enough to allow the issue to be considered by a jury at trial, and, thus, avoid summary judgment.
The evidence supporting the complaint, which detailed the discovery of a body identified as Phasavao’s, included Lao to English translated transcripts of interviews with military personnel and a village chief. These individuals stated they had seen a decomposing body by the road, which appeared to have died from a traumatic accident. The body’s identification was confirmed by the U.S. documents found with it. However, Farmers objected to this evidence, citing hearsay, lack of authentication, and the absence of sworn statements. While the court found that the documents met most of Rule 56’s requirements, the transcripts were not in the form of declarations, thus not fully compliant with Rule 56(c), which mandates that evidence must be made on personal knowledge and in an admissible form.
Under Rule 56(e), the court may allow a party to properly support or address an assertion of fact if they fail to do so initially. In the complaint, the family intended to bring two soldiers and a village chief to testify at trial about the discovery of Phasavao’s body. While Farmers argued that this plan is speculative, the court found no reason to believe the testimony would be inadmissible. The witnesses’ identities were known, and there was no reason to think the family could not establish the identity of the body. The court concluded that correcting the evidence by resubmitting it in the proper form—either as declarations or affidavits—would resolve the issues of hearsay and authentication. The court continued the motion for summary judgment, allowing the family time to submit the corrected evidence.
Bad Faith Claim
The family’s second claim for relief alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith due to Farmer’s failure to properly investigate Phasavao’s death. Farmers argued that this claim is time-barred. The family countered that Farmers failed to notify them of the applicable statute of limitations and should be equitably estopped from asserting this defense. The family referred to specific California regulations that require insurers to notify claimants about time limits for claims.
The court disagreed with the family’s argument, stating that the cited regulations apply to claims based on insurance contract benefits, not bad faith tort claims. For equitable estoppel to apply, certain conditions must be met, including detrimental reliance on Farmers’ conduct. However, the court found no evidence that the family was misled or hindered in filing the claim on time. The family received the denial notices and understood their meaning. Therefore, the court ruled that the bad faith claim was time-barred.
Summary Judgment Continuance on Breach of Contract Claim
The motion for summary judgment regarding the family’s first claim for breach of contract was continued. The family was given additional time to resubmit evidence supporting their allegations about Phasavo’s death.
The family later submitted Lao to English translated declarations under penalty of perjury from individuals who discovered the body, as well as statements from Lao army personnel regarding U.S. identification documents found on the body, which they claimed supported their allegation that the body was Phasavao’s. Farmers opposed the resubmission, and the family’s attorney filed a declaration explaining the circumstances under which the declarations were obtained. The court had to consider the resubmitted evidence in the context of Farmers’ motion for summary judgment.
Farmers’ motion for summary judgment centered on the claim that the family cannot provide admissible evidence proving the death of Phasavao. The focus was on the admissibility of the evidence, with Farmers arguing that issues like hearsay and authentication make the evidence inadequate. The court previously concluded that in California “due proof of death” requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and that documents recovered from the body could be used to establish identity, provided they meet official identification standards. The court also clarified that when challenging the admissibility of evidence under Rule 56(c)(2), the objecting party must show that the evidence cannot be presented in an admissible form. It noted that issues of hearsay and authentication could be overcome by the family and the evidence could then be admissible at trial.
Farmers argued that unauthenticated documents could not be considered in summary judgment, citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. as precedent. The Ninth Circuit held that for evidence to be admissible, it must be authenticated by a person with knowledge of the documents, typically through an affidavit or declaration under Rule 56(e). However, the court clarified that while documents must be properly authenticated, the focus during summary judgment is on the admissibility of the contents of the evidence at trial.
English Translation of Lao Documents v. Witness Testimony
In the case at hand, the evidence being disputed did not consist of documents but was comprised of witness testimony. The court noted that Plaintiff’s submission of declarations, particularly the one from Kham-Ouane Phan-Nya-Pheng, was lacking certain required attachments, such as the original statements in Laotian and their English translations. Despite this, the absence of these documents was not considered fatal to the current summary judgment motion. The court only needed to address the status of one specific declaration and would not dismiss the case based on the missing attachments at this stage.
The key piece of evidence was the Pheng Declaration (Pheng Dec.), where Pheng recounted discovering and identifying several U.S. documents in the pockets of a corpse. Pheng also stated his willingness to testify under oath about the events and actions related to the discovery of the documents. The Pheng Dec. did not need to meet the strict requirements of admissibility at this stage, but instead, it should provide a factual basis for the claim. As the Pheng Dec. provided sufficient details to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the identity of the deceased, the court denied Farmers’ motion for summary judgment on the family’s breach of contract claim.
Practical Lessons for Handling Disputed Death Benefits in Foreign Death Cases
We can derive several practical lessons for handling breach of insurance contract claims, particularly those involving disputed death benefits:
1. Importance of Thorough Documentation: Estate of Mohamed highlights the importance of submitting thorough and varied documentation, such as death certificates, affidavits, medical certificates, and funeral records. Insurers may dispute the authenticity of foreign documents, but if the claimant provides detailed supplementary evidence, it strengthens their case. Insurers are obligated to consider all submitted documents and cannot impose unattainable standards (e.g., demanding a U.S.-recognized death certificate when not required by the policy).
2. Importance of Investigation: Estate of Mohamed also highlights the insurer’s duty to investigate claims. When insurers are faced with claims based on foreign documents written in foreign languages or in jurisdictions with limited infrastructure, they must make reasonable efforts to verify the death. The failure to do so can result in a breach of contract and the insurer’s liability for the death benefit.
3. Understand Policy Terms: In both Estate of Mohamed and Honnevk, the insurers denied claims based on interpretations of policy language regarding “due proof of death” and the sufficiency of evidence. A key takeaway is that one should carefully read insurance policies to understand what documentation is required, and insurers should not set unreasonable thresholds for proof (e.g., requiring impossible-to-obtain documents).
4. State Law Governs the Substantive Requirements in Proving a Claim: Minh Tu, Estate of Mohamed, and Honnevk remind us that in diversity cases state law determines what must be proven to prevail in a claim and federal law determines what evidence is admissible to make that proof.
5. Burden of Proof and Summary Judgment: Honnevk underscores the importance of understanding the burden of proof and summary judgment requirements. While plaintiffs need to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the insured’s death meets the policy’s criteria (e.g., accidental death), they must also present evidence in proper form. Courts will not grant summary judgment if there is a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, making sure evidence meets legal standards, such as affidavits, declarations, and proper authentication, is essential to avoid summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
6. Credibility of Witnesses: Witness testimony can play a crucial role. In both cases, witness accounts—whether from family members, villagers, or military personnel—were pivotal in establishing facts. Insurers may dispute the details, but if credible witnesses can substantiate the claimant’s case, the burden shifts to the insurer to present counter-evidence.
Reach out to All Language Alliance, Inc. to obtain certified translation of legal documents written in Lao and to hire an English to Laotian deposition interpreter for an on-site deposition or for a deposition via Zoom.
#alllanguagealliance #Laotranslation #Laotranslator #Laointerpreter #Affidavittranslation #Laotranslation #certifiedtranslation #certifiedtranslationservices #Laointerpreter #Laotiantranslator #Laotianinterpreter #Laointerpreter #Laodepositioniterpreter
Up Next: Foreign Adoption Domestication Is Key to Avoiding Inheritance Challenges