U.S. Bank National Association v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Filing
89
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - For the reasons set forth herein, Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Report is accepted in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth in the Report: (1) the branches of Sun Life's motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (a) on its first and second counterclaims for judgment declaring (i) that the Policy was an illegal wagering contract that violated the Delaware Constitution and the public policy o f Delaware, and (ii) that the Policy lacked an insurable interest at inception, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio, (b) dismissing Count I of US Bank's complaint for judgment declaring inter alia, "that an insurable interest existed a t the inception of the Policy and that Sun Life must pay US Bank the $10,000,000 death benefit owed to it," and (c) dismissing U.S. Banks affirmative defenses to its counterclaims, are granted; (2) Sun Life is granted judgment as a matter o f law (a) declaring (i) that the Policy was an illegal wagering contract that violated the Delaware Constitution and the public policy of Delaware, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio; and (ii) that the Policy lacked an insurable interest at inc eption, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio, (b) dismissing Count I of the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and (c) dismissing U.S. Banks affirmative defenses to its counterclaims; (3) the branch of Sun Lifes motion seeking summary judg ment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing Count II of U.S. Banks complaint for judgment declaring that Sun Life is required to return all premiums [sic] payments paid for the Policy to Sun Life, plus interest" i s denied and U.S. Bank is granted judgment as a matter of law declaring that Sun Life is required to return to it the premiums U.S. Bank paid out on the Policy in the total amount of one million nine hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred fifty-thr ee dollars and ninety-four cents ($1,992,553.94); and (4) U.S. Banks motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.SO Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 1/24/2017. (Tirado, Chelsea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
FILED
CLERK
3:07 pm, Jan 24, 2017
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
14-CV-4703 (SJF)(ARL)
-againstSUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are: (1) the objections of plaintiff U.S. Bank National
Association (“U.S. Bank”) to so much of the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
Arlene Rosario Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge, dated August 30, 2016 (“the Report”),
as (a) finds that Delaware law governs the instant dispute and that the life insurance policy at
issue (“the Policy”) is void ab initio under Delaware law and, thus, recommends (i) that the
branches of the motion of defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”)
seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
dismissing Count I of the complaint for judgment declaring that U.S. Bank is due the death
benefit under the Policy, and on its first two counterclaims against U.S. Bank, be granted; and (ii)
that U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment on Count I of the complaint be denied, (b)
recommends that U.S. Bank’s affirmative defenses to Sun Life’s counterclaims against it fail as a
matter of law and do not preclude summary judgment in Sun Life’s favor, and (c) finds that U.S.
Bank is only entitled to a return of the premiums it paid out on the Policy and does not award
prejudgment interest thereon; and (2) Sun Life’s objections to so much of the Report as (a)
1
recommends that “U.S. Bank is entitled to a return of the premiums it paid out on the Policy and
that U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with regard to Court II [of the complaint seeking
judgment declaring that Sun Life must return all premium payments paid for the Policy] be
granted and Sun Life’s motion for summary judgment [dismissing Count II of the complaint be]
denied[,]” (Report at 38), and (b) finds that “Sun Life is not entitled to recover damages as a
result of the issuance of the Policy.” (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, Magistrate Judge
Lindsay’s Report is accepted in its entirety.
I.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Any party may serve and file written objections to a report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge on a dispositive matter within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any portion of such a report and
recommendation to which a timely objection has been made is reviewed de novo. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the
district judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings
or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
B.
Objections
U.S. Bank contends, inter alia, that Magistrate Judge Lindsay erred: (1) in finding that
Delaware law, not New York law, applied; (2) in concluding that, if Delaware law applied, the
Policy lacked an insurable interest at inception and was void ab initio; (3) in rejecting U.S.
2
Bank’s affirmative defenses; and (4) in failing (a) to require Sun Life to refund the premiums it
received prior to U.S. Bank’s purchase of the Policy, the value of which was purportedly
incorporated in the purchase price U.S. Bank paid for the Policy in order to compensate the prior
owner of the Policy, and (b) to award U.S. Bank prejudgment interest on the refunded premium
payments to which she found that it was entitled, totaling one million nine hundred ninety-two
thousand five hundred fifty-three dollars and ninety-four cents ($1,992,553.94).
Sun Life contends, inter alia, that Magistrate Judge Lindsay erred in recommending that
the branch of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing Count II of the complaint for
judgment declaring that Sun Life must return the premiums that U.S. Bank paid on the Policy be
denied, and that summary judgment should be entered in favor of U.S. Bank on that claim,
because: (1) U.S. Bank never moved for summary judgment on that claim; (2) in recommending
a premium refund, the Report applied the remedy of rescission, which is inapplicable to void
transactions; and (3) “it would be inequitable [a] to allow any premium refund given the Reports’
[sic] finding that this illegal policy transaction was instigated as part of a STOLI [strangeroriginated life insurance] scheme[,] and [b] to allow a premium refund without, at the very least,
providing Sun Life with a credit and setoff for the $722,205.28 in commissions that it paid on
this illegal policy transaction.” (Sun Life Obj. at 3).
Upon de novo review of the Report, the operative pleadings and all motion papers, and
consideration of the parties’ objections to the Report and their respective responses thereto, the
objections are overruled; the Report is accepted in its entirety; and, for the reasons set forth in the
Report, (1) the branches of Sun Life’s motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (a) on its first and second counterclaims against U.S. Bank
3
for judgment declaring (i) that the Policy was an illegal wagering contract that violated the
Delaware Constitution and the public policy of Delaware; and (ii) that the Policy lacked an
insurable interest at inception, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio, (b) dismissing Count I of
U.S. Bank’s complaint for judgment declaring, inter alia, “that an insurable interest existed at the
inception of the Policy and that Sun Life must pay U.S. Bank the $10,000,000 death benefit owed
to it[,]” (Compl., ¶ 39), and (c) dismissing U.S. Bank’s affirmative defenses to its counterclaims,
are granted; (2) Sun Life is granted judgment as a matter of law (a) declaring (i) that the Policy
was an illegal wagering contract that violated the Delaware Constitution and the public policy of
Delaware, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio; and (ii) that the Policy lacked an insurable
interest at inception, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio, (b) dismissing Count I of the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and (c) dismissing U.S. Bank’s affirmative defenses to its
counterclaims; (3) the branch of Sun Life’s motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing Count II of U.S. Bank’s complaint for
judgment declaring “that Sun Life is required to return all premiums [sic] payments paid for the
Policy to Sun Life, plus interest[,]” (Compl., ¶ 43), is denied and U.S. Bank is granted judgment
as a matter of law declaring that Sun Life is required to return to it the premiums U.S. Bank paid
out on the Policy in the total amount of one million nine hundred ninety-two thousand five
hundred fifty-three dollars and ninety-four cents ($1,992,553.94); and (4) U.S. Bank’s motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is denied.
4
II.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s Report is accepted in its
entirety and, for the reasons set forth in the Report: (1) the branches of Sun Life’s motion seeking
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (a) on its first
and second counterclaims for judgment declaring (i) that the Policy was an illegal wagering
contract that violated the Delaware Constitution and the public policy of Delaware, and (ii) that
the Policy lacked an insurable interest at inception, thus rendering the Policy void ab initio, (b)
dismissing Count I of U.S. Bank’s complaint for judgment declaring, inter alia, “that an
insurable interest existed at the inception of the Policy and that Sun Life must pay U.S. Bank the
$10,000,000 death benefit owed to it[,]” (Compl., ¶ 39), and (c) dismissing U.S. Bank’s
affirmative defenses to its counterclaims, are granted; (2) Sun Life is granted judgment as a
matter of law (a) declaring (i) that the Policy was an illegal wagering contract that violated the
Delaware Constitution and the public policy of Delaware, thus rendering the Policy void ab
initio; and (ii) that the Policy lacked an insurable interest at inception, thus rendering the Policy
void ab initio, (b) dismissing Count I of the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and (c)
dismissing U.S. Bank’s affirmative defenses to its counterclaims; (3) the branch of Sun Life’s
motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
dismissing Count II of U.S. Bank’s complaint for judgment declaring “that Sun Life is required
to return all premiums [sic] payments paid for the Policy to Sun Life, plus interest[,]” (Compl., ¶
43), is denied and U.S. Bank is granted judgment as a matter of law declaring that Sun Life is
required to return to it the premiums U.S. Bank paid out on the Policy in the total amount of one
million nine hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred fifty-three dollars and ninety-four cents
5
($1,992,553.94); and (4) U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in
accordance with this Order and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN
United States District Judge
Dated: January 24, 2017
Central Islip, New York
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?