Wells Fargo Bank v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New…

Nature of the order

This is a scheduling order, not a decision on the parties’ contract dispute. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about a briefing schedule for anticipated motions for summary judgment and motions concerning whether expert testimony should be admitted. The parties must file a joint letter containing a proposed schedule or competing proposals by September 9, 2024.

Underlying dispute described by the parties

The parties’ letter states that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., acting as a securities intermediary, claims an entitlement to a $9.8 million death benefit under a life-insurance policy issued by The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York. The policy insured Catherine Cohen, who died in October 2021. The parties dispute whether the insurer must pay the death benefit because of questions about Cohen’s date of birth, the policy’s maturity date, and a policy provision addressing misstatements of age.

Wells Fargo described an anticipated motion for partial summary judgment—judgment without a trial when the material facts are not genuinely disputed—challenging most of the insurer’s misstatement-of-age defenses. The insurer described its anticipated motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the policy matured before Cohen’s death or that the death benefit should be reduced to zero. Each side disputed the other’s expected arguments, including arguments concerning contract interpretation, reformation of the policy, time limits, judicial estoppel, and whether Cohen acted fraudulently.

Anticipated expert-evidence motions

The parties also described anticipated motions under the standards governing expert testimony. Wells Fargo said it intended to challenge testimony from the insurer’s proposed experts, including Suhas Sarathy, Roger D. Joslyn, and Barbara Mueller. The insurer said it intended to challenge testimony from Wells Fargo’s proposed experts, including Laura Dambier, Stan Shelley, and Kathleen Hinckley. These descriptions are party positions, not rulings by the court.

Other scheduling matters

The parties stated that they had participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in September 2023 and did not request another settlement conference or court-annexed mediation at that time. They also requested that deadlines for motions addressing trial evidence be set before trial.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to meet and confer about the briefing schedule and to submit their joint letter or competing proposals by September 9, 2024. The opinion does not grant or deny the anticipated summary-judgment or expert-evidence motions and does not resolve the underlying insurance-contract dispute.