Bally v. State Farm Life Insurance Company

Background

Elizabeth A. Bally sued State Farm Life Insurance Company. Count II concerns a policy provision stating: “The monthly expense charge is $5.00.” Bally alleges that the policy promised that fixed monthly expenses would not exceed $5.00, but that State Farm breached the policy by charging policyholders additional, unidentified monthly expenses through the cost-of-insurance rate.

In an earlier order on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied State Farm summary judgment on Count II. The court stated that the policy’s language could reasonably be understood to cover all monthly expenses. It also found that the policy’s structure supported Bally’s interpretation. Even assuming State Farm’s interpretation was reasonable, the court found that the extrinsic evidence—the evidence outside the policy’s text—did not resolve the issue and instead suggested that the “monthly expense charge” was at least ambiguous.

The court later allowed Bally to move for summary judgment on Count II. Bally filed that motion on June 30, 2021. State Farm then asked for permission to file a second motion for summary judgment on the same count.

Legal standard

The court explained that district courts have discretion to consider successive summary-judgment motions. Good cause may include newly available evidence or an expanded factual record, an intervening change in controlling law, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Analysis and ruling

The court held that State Farm did not establish good cause for another summary-judgment motion. State Farm did not identify newly available evidence, a change in the law, a clear error, or a similar development warranting renewed briefing. Although State Farm promised to offer new “fact evidence,” it did not describe that evidence or explain why it could not have presented it in its earlier motion.

The court also found that State Farm did not explain how Bally’s supplemental expert report affected the interpretation of the monthly expense charge. State Farm likewise did not describe its promised “significant analysis” or explain why it could not have offered that analysis earlier. The court stated that State Farm could make its arguments in opposition to Bally’s motion but was not entitled to “a second bite at the apple.”

The court DENIED State Farm’s motion for leave to file a cross-motion for summary judgment on Count II. The supplied conclusion also states that the court DENIED State Farm’s motion for leave to file another item, but the excerpt is incomplete and does not clearly identify that item. This order addressed permission to file another motion; it did not decide the ultimate merits of Count II.