Reference no: EM133216018

This question follows up on Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co. To understand summary judgment, one needs to understand what additional evidence would have enabled Mrs. Houchens to avoid summary judgment. For questions (b)-(d), is there a genuine issue of material fact, making summary judgment improper?

a. Please first summarize the summary judgment rule.

b. Suppose Mrs. Houchens produced a witness, a former college friend of Mr. Houchens who had not seen him for more than ten years. The friend is prepared to testify that, while vacationing in Thailand during the time in question, he saw Mr. Houchens (or someone who looked like him) hit by a bus in a busy intersection. He caught only a brief glimpse; moreover, his vision is not good. The Thai police have no record of a bus accident on the day in question. Can Mrs. Houchens avoid summary judgment with this showing?

c. What if, in response to Mrs. Houchens's production of the witness above, the insurance company comes forward with two affidavits, from two Thai government officials, stating that Mr. Houchens was shot and killed by Thai police when they intercepted a drug smuggling effort. (Assume that such a death would not be accidental, as the Virginia courts define that term.) In support of these affidavits, the Thai officials state that they are prepared to produce Mr. Houchens's passport. The judge is then faced with conflicting affidavits-one from the near-sighted former roommate, the other from Thai government officials. Summary judgment for the insurer?

d. Finally, what if, as in Houchens itself, neither side had been able to find information about the circumstances of Mr. Houchens's death. But assume that Virginia law specified that seven years' unexplained absence would give rise to a presumption of death, and, in the absence of contrary evidence, such presumed death would be further presumed to be accidental. Summary judgment for the insurer? For Mrs. Houchens?