Petzen v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Filing
25
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; SETTING deadline/schedule as to additional summary judgment motions. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge on 8/30/2014. (MEAL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOAN S. PETZEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
12-CV-1185S
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
1.
Plaintiff Joan Petzen brings this action against Defendant Connecticut General
Life Insurance Company (“CGLIC”) for payment of life insurance benefits in the amount
of $130,000 she claims are owed to her following the death of her husband, Stephen
Petzen. Mrs. Petzen is the beneficiary of the policy held by CGLIC, and she maintains
that CGLIC breached the insurance contract, acted in bad faith, and violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) when it denied her full
coverage for Mr. Petzen’s death.
2.
CGLIC denies the claims and contends that Mrs. Petzen is not entitled to life
insurance benefits in excess of the guaranteed issue amount of $20,000, because Mr.
Petzen failed to disclose a change in health between the time the application for
insurance was completed and the effective coverage date.
3.
The parties now move for summary judgment. Each contends that there are no
material issues of disputed fact, and each seeks judgment as a matter of law. These
motions are dismissed without prejudice, and the parties are given until October 17,
2014 to resubmit motions that address the deficiencies noted below.
1
4.
This action involves citizens of different states, yet neither party has addressed
which state’s law applies. Plaintiff, who has cited to decisions from New York courts and
federal district courts within New York state only, appears to assume New York law
applies. Defendant characterizes all of Plaintiff’s citations as misplaced, but the reasons
for its position are not entirely clear. Thus, it is not at all certain that there is agreement
as to choice of law.
5.
Most egregious is Defendant’s request for judgment as a matter of law based on
a “Memorandum of Law” that contains no applicable substantive law whatsoever. 1 Even
in its response and reply memoranda, Defendant simply recites Plaintiff’s citations and
declares them each misplaced, with only cursory reasoning and no countervailing
citations.
6.
The gravamen of this action involves an alleged change in Mr. Petzen’s health
between the date the Petzens applied for life insurance and the date certain coverage
became effective. The application for coverage contained the following language: “I
understand that I am responsible to report to the insurance company any change in my
health prior to my coverage effective date, and that no coverage will be effective unless
I meet the insurance company’s underwriting requirements on the effective date.” (R.
637-38.)
7.
Neither party discusses whether a duty to report a change in health is addressed
in the applicable state’s insurance laws or relevant caselaw. Plaintiff simply urges that
the term “change in health” is ambiguous and should be construed in her favor.
8.
Nor does either party discuss what effect, if any, would attach to the failure to
1 Defendant provides case citations with respect to the standard of review the Court should apply, but
nothing in support of its purported entitlement to judgment in its favor.
2
report a change in health if the change did not impact the individual’s ability to meet the
underwriting requirements. Defendant simply states, without explanation or citation, that
the materiality of the change is not an issue in this case.
9.
Neither party can be awarded judgment as a matter of law absent well-supported
arguments addressing the fundamental legal issues in this case.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket
No. 13) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
FURTHER that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 14) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
FURTHER that the parties have until October 17, 2014 to move for summary
judgment consistent with this Order.
FURTHER that responses are due no later than November 14, 2014, and replies
no later than December 1, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Dated August 30, 2014
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
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?