Hegarty v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

Background

Transamerica Life Insurance Company moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to resolve part of Robert Hegarty’s case in Transamerica’s favor. Transamerica argued that Hegarty’s policy was covered by the Oakes settlement and that the settlement’s release barred the claims in this action.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Transamerica had submitted substantial evidence supporting its position that Hegarty’s policy was covered by the Oakes settlement. But Hegarty relied on numbers on his policy documents that appeared inconsistent with the numbers for policies covered by the settlement. The court held that this evidence was enough to create a triable issue—that is, an issue that could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment. The court also noted that an explanation offered by Transamerica’s counsel at the hearing had not been submitted through a declaration or other admissible evidence.

The court then considered the alternative assumption that Hegarty’s policy was covered by the settlement. Under that assumption, the court found that Transamerica had presented essentially undisputed evidence that Hegarty’s claims fell within the settlement’s release. The release covered claims arising from or related to policy persistency or other policy bonuses, while preserving claims for benefits payable under the express written terms of the policy form.

Even so, the court found that Transamerica had not provided enough evidence to establish as a matter of law that the claims in this action and the claims in the operative Oakes complaint were based on an “identical factual predicate.” The court also noted that Transamerica had not cited authority suggesting that the Supreme Court of Texas would reject that doctrine. The order states that a notice sent to Oakes class members included a different description of preserved claims, but the court made no finding about that notice’s effect because neither party addressed it in the written submissions.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied Transamerica’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed or otherwise resolve the remaining claims.