Wells Fargo Bank v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New…
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York, Judge Cronan scheduled arguments on summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York, the parties whose motions were scheduled for oral argument.
What happened
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York involves the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony.
The court scheduled oral argument on both sets of motions for July 2, 2025, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York. The opinion does not decide any of the motions.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the parties to address issues involving reformation defenses under the policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision and whether that provision contains a hidden ambiguity preventing summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Wells Fargo Bank v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New… · No. 1:22-cv-08606
- John Cronan
- June 11, 2025
What the order does
The court scheduled oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, listed at Dockets 91 and 95, for July 2, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The court anticipated allowing thirty minutes per side, including an opportunity for rebuttal.
The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss whether New York’s substantive limit on contract reformation based on contingent events affects the defendant’s reformation defenses in light of the policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision. The court also directed the parties to address whether that provision contains a latent ambiguity that would prevent summary judgment and require a factfinder to consider outside evidence.
The court separately scheduled oral argument on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony, listed at Dockets 78, 79, 83, 86, and 88, for July 2, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The court anticipated allowing thirty minutes per side, including an opportunity for rebuttal.
Disposition
This opinion is a scheduling order. Judge John P. Cronan did not grant or deny the pending motions and did not resolve the parties’ underlying legal dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.