Lincoln Benefit Life v. Wilson

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The parties' requests for expedited rulings on their motions in limine (Filing Nos. 175 , 190 ) are granted. Defendant's motions in limine (Filing No. 161 , 165 ) are granted. Plaintiff's first motion in l imine (Filing No. 168 ) is granted. Plaintiff's second motion in limine (Filing No. 171 ) is denied. Defendant's motion to strike (Filing No. 188 ) is granted, and Filing Nos. 180 and 181 are hereby stricken from the court file. The remaining issues for trial are: Whether Lincoln Benefit Life is obligated to pay Wilson a commission under the agreement(s) between Wilson andLincoln Benefit Life because the policies were converted and Lincoln Benefit Life received the premiums pursuant to the judgment of the New York court? If the answer to the foregoing is "yes," what is the amount of the commission due Wilson? Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (GJG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LINCOLN BENEFIT LIFE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES W. WILSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3210

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

In a memorandum and order entered on December 16, 2015, the court granted
in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant. The
court ruled “[a]s a matter of law, the verdict returned by the jury in the New York
litigation precludes [Plaintiff] from claiming that [Defendant] is liable for any portion
of the money judgment the Lollytogs shareholders obtained against it” (Filing No. 154
at CM/ECF p. 28). Plaintiff’s damage claims therefore were dismissed with prejudice.
The court also ruled that “[t]he collateral estoppel doctrine precludes [Plaintiff’s]
defense [to Defendant’s counterclaim] that [he] is in material breach of the agent’s
agreement because his ‘conduct formed the basis for the [Lollytogs shareholders’]
claims’ in the New York litigation” (Filing No. 154 at CM/ECF p. 29). Stated slightly
differently, “Plaintiff is precluded from asserting as a defense that Defendant breached
the agent’s contract in connection with the sale of the term life insurance policies”
(Filing No. 154 at CM/ECF p. 30). “On the evidence presented, however, the court
[was] unable to conclude as a matter of law that [Defendant] is entitled to payment of
additional commissions” (Filing No. 154 at CM/ECF p. 29).
On March 8, 2016, both parties each filed two motions in limine which, to a
large extent, rely on the foregoing rulings. Defendant seeks to prevent Plaintiff (1)
“from offering evidence or testimony in support of a claim that Defendant violated
various provisions of its [sic] Agent’s Agreement with Plaintiff, and/or that Defendant
was negligent in the placement of insurance for Lollytogs with Plaintiff, therefore

precluding Defendant from suing Plaintiff for breach of the Agent’s Agreement”
(Filing No. 161), and (2) “from a) seeking to assert (and offering evidence or
testimony in support of a contention) that Defendant is bared [sic] from receiving
commissions because a condition precedent has not been met and; b) offering
evidence inconsistent with the prior rulings of this Court” (Filing No. 165). Plaintiff
seeks to prevent Defendant from offering (1) “any evidence concerning [Plaintiff’s]
alleged obligations to pay monies to non-party brokerages” (Filing No. 168), and (2)
evidence “with respect to [Plaintiff’s] conduct vis a vis the policyholders and the
jury verdict and judgment in the previous lawsuit” (Filing No. 171).
On March 16, 2016, prior to completion of briefing on the motions in limine
(which occurred on March 21, 2016), the court entered an order providing that the
motions would be held in abeyance and taken up immediately before trial, which is
currently scheduled to commence on April 5, 2016 (Filing No. 174). Both parties have
since expressed a desire for an expedited ruling on the motions (Filing Nos. 175, 190).
The court therefore will rule on the motions at this time.
Defendant’s first motion in limine (Filing No. 161) will be granted. Plaintiff
cannot offer evidence that Defendant breached the agent’s agreement or was negligent
in the placement of insurance for Lollytogs with Plaintiff.
Defendant’s second motion in limine (Filing No. 165) also will be granted. It
appears from Plaintiff’s brief that the conditions precedent it claims were not met are:
“(1) the term policies were not exchanged for new policies; (2) Lincoln Benefit did
not receive premiums on converted policies; and (3) Lincoln Benefit did not receive
an application for the converted policies” (Filing No. 187 at CM/ECF p. 4). The court
finds these conditions were excused as a matter of law.
Plaintiff’s first motion in limine (Filing No. 168) is granted. Defendant claims
he is entitled to recover commissions from Plaintiff based on a direct contractual
relationship.
-2-

Plaintiff’s second motion in limine (Filing No. 171) is denied. Not all evidence
regarding the New York litigation is irrelevant.
Relatedly, Defendant has moved to strike to inadvertent filings (Filing Nos.
180, 181). The motion to strike (Filing No. 188) will be granted.
To assist the parties and Magistrate Judge Zwart, I will state the remaining
issues for trial. Those will be stated in the last paragraph of the Order that follows.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The parties’ requests for expedited rulings on their motions in limine
(Filing Nos. 175, 190) are granted.

2.

Defendant’s motions in limine (Filing No. 161, 165) are granted.

3.

Plaintiff’s first motion in limine (Filing No. 168) is granted.

4.

Plaintiff’s second motion in limine (Filing No. 171) is denied.

5.

Defendant’s motion to strike (Filing No. 188) is granted, and Filing Nos.
180 and 181 are hereby stricken from the court file.

6.

The remaining issues for trial are:
Whether Lincoln Benefit Life is obligated to pay Wilson a
commission under the agreement(s) between Wilson and
Lincoln Benefit Life because the policies were converted

-3-

and Lincoln Benefit Life received the premiums pursuant
to the judgment of the New York court?
If the answer to the foregoing is "yes," what is the amount
of the commission due Wilson?
DATED this 24th day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

-4-