Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Assur. Co.
Decision Date | 14 June 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 87 C 10014.,87 C 10014. |
Citation | 688 F. Supp. 386 |
Parties | MUTUELLE GENERALE FRANCAISE VIE, Plaintiff, v. LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Bruce M. Friedman, Alan J. Brill, Charmaine Marlowe, Kroll & Tract, New York City, Mark Wohlberg, Garbutt & Jacobson Assoc., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Stephen Novack, Mitchell Marinello, Karen Drizin, Novack & Macey, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie ("MGF") has filed a seven-count Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") against Life Assurance Company of Pennsylvania ("LACOP").1 All of MGF's asserted causes of action, including claims of fraud and breach of contract, arise from a reinsurance contract or "treaty" between the parties.
LACOP has moved to dismiss the Complaint under:
For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, LACOP's motion is granted (even though not all the existing counts are substantively defective).
MGF is a French insurance company (¶ 1), while LACOP is a Pennsylvania insurance company with its principal place of business in Chicago (¶ 2). MGF's claims in this diversity action relate to a risk-sharing contractual relationship between the parties, known in industry parlance as a reinsurance treaty. Under such arrangements the reinsured company — here LACOP — transfers or "cedes" to the reinsurer — here MGF — policies that the reinsured has written or assumed from other underwriters. In consideration of receiving the premiums paid by the policyholders to the reinsured, the reinsurer becomes responsible for claims made on the policies.
LACOP and MGF executed a Reinsurance Agreement (Ex. A, the "Treaty"3) requiring LACOP to cede and MGF to accept a certain class of policies written at least during the period between August 1, 1982 and December 31, 1984 (Ex. A Amdt. 1 Art. XIX). More precisely, the Treaty was of unlimited duration but could be terminated by three months' written notice from either party effective not earlier than the December 31, 1984 date (id.). LACOP was required to cede and MGF to accept (¶ 6(1)):
"credit life and credit disability business written in the United States under the General Agency Agreement with Frank B. Fuhrer and Associates `Fuhrer'," as specified in an Amendment # 1 executed contemporaneously with the pertinent main agreement.4
MGF was to reinsure that business automatically, but the Treaty required LACOP to forward regular monthly account statements giving "all pertinent information" on the ceded business (¶ 6(2)). Beyond the reporting requirements, the Treaty also set out the rates that would be used to calculate the premiums (¶ 6(3)) and required that any addenda be in writing (¶ 6(5)). Additionally, as part of an arbitration provision the parties agreed that "the customs and usages of the business of reinsurance" would be used to interpret the Treaty and that the parties were to "act in all things with the highest faith" (Ex. A Art. XVI).
As n. 1 reflects, the parties utilized another insurance company, CICA, as a technical intermediary for some (though, as will be seen, not quite all) of the cessions (¶ 8). To implement that arrangement CICA and the parties executed complementary reinsurance agreements (Exs. B and C), which were not intended to alter the Treaty substantively (¶¶ 9-11).
MGF also identifies two other parties involved in the transactions. Suburban Management and Consulting Ltd. ("Suburban") acted as MGF's exclusive marketing representative . All communications between LACOP and MGF were to be transmitted through Suburban (id.), and Suburban was to receive 10% of the premiums from MGF (¶ 12). Finally, E.T. Bailey Co. was to receive 2% of the premiums as the broker for the transaction (¶ 13).
In September 1984 MGF exercised its right to terminate the Treaty as of December 31, 1984. LACOP and MGF memorialized the termination by Treaty Amendment No. 2 (¶ 6(6); Ex. A Amdt. 2).
Because the Complaint is so long (205 paragraphs occupying 51 typewritten pages), the details of MGF's allegations are best set out as needed in this opinion's substantive discussion of the various aspects of the current motion. At this juncture it is useful to set out only the essence of the charges:
In November 1987 MGF filed its original complaint, asserting eight claims for relief (including both contract and tort claims). When LACOP filed a motion for dismissal on grounds very close to those in the current motion, this Court did not set a briefing schedule. Instead it identified the obvious defects in the initial complaint in a January 14, 1988 oral ruling.
Though it is really not critical for current purposes (after all, the January 14 ruling was not a final order in any event), the parties hotly dispute the thrust of this Court's remarks. LACOP insists this Court dismissed the original complaint as fatally defective (L. Mem. 15). MGF takes a more roseate view (M. Mem. 3):
Be that as it may, the Court indicated its belief that there may be merit to certain of LACOP's arguments addressed to the legal sufficiency of the Complaint, and the Court having expressed its views on the issues, MGF determined to file an Amended Complaint to avoid engaging in motion practice....
But the January 14 transcript reveals the rulings were not so tentatively expressed as MGF would like to believe. This Court stated flatly that the complaint as framed did not stand up and detailed the defects in each count. It is of course immaterial that no formal dismissal of the complaint took place (this Court would certainly have done so had MGF pressed the point by refusing to amend). What is relevant are the problems this Court initially identified that remain applicable to MGF's second attempt to state its claim.6
In any event, MGF did amend. Though it has excised a single count, the pleading has swollen from 17 pages and 69 paragraphs to (as already stated) 51 pages and 205 paragraphs — not counting some 65 pages of Complaint Exhibits. MGF now attempts to state these claims:
It seeks equitable relief in the form of rescission of the Treaty, as well as actual and punitive damages.
LACOP urges the Complaint suffers from some if not all of the same defects as its predecessor. It raises a host of challenges:
Those arguments and MGF's responses will be addressed basically in the sequence in which LACOP has presented them. One preliminary comment is in order. Neither party has seen fit to address the choice of law issue (and this Court's review of the underlying contracts reveals no designation of the applicable law). Because both sides (however unthinkingly7) treat Illinois law as controlling, this Court is free to (and does) treat that as a stipulation for the application of that law (National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, Inc. v. F.T.L. Marketing Corp., 779 F.2d 1281, 1284-85 (7th Cir.1985)).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carey Transp., Inc.
...as it would be accorded by that state's courts. See ARS, 2008 WL 828112, at *14 (citing Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Ass. Co. of Pa., 688 F.Supp. 386, 397 n. 15 (N.D.Ill.1988) ("[O]ne Supreme Court decision (Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169, 61 S.Ct. 176, 85 L.Ed. ......
-
Leys v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
...decision as it would be accorded by that state's courts. See ARS, 602 F.Supp.2d at 846 (citing Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Ass. Co. of Pa., 688 F.Supp. 386, 397 n. 15 (N.D.Ill.1988) ("[O]ne Supreme Court decision (Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169, 61 S.Ct. 176, 85......
-
Lakeland Regional Health System v. Whi
...accorded by that state's courts. See ARS, 602 F.Supp.2d at 846, 2008 WL 828112 at *14 (citing Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Ass. Co. of Pa., 688 F.Supp. 386, 397 n. 15 (N.D.Ill.1988) ("[O]ne Supreme Court decision (Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169, 61 S.Ct. 176, 85 ......
-
Poly-Flex Const., Inc. v. Neyer, Tiseo & Hindo
...as that state's courts would. See ARS, ___ F.Supp.2d at ___, 2008 WL 828112 at * 14 (citing Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Ass. Co. of Pa., 688 F.Supp. 386, 397 n. 15 (N.D.Ill.1988) ("[O]ne Supreme Court decision (Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169, 61 S.Ct. 176, 85 L.......
-
Negligent Misrepresentation and the Economic Loss Rule
...N.E.2d 718 (Ill.App. 1987); Grass v. Homann, 474 N.E.2d 711, 714 (Ill.App. 1984); Mutuelle Generale Francaise Vie v. Life Assurance Co., 688 F.Supp. 386, 399 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Kaushall v. State Bank, No. 82 C 7414 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 24, 1988). 31. See, e.g., Meier, supra, note 18 at 581; Jackson......