The opinion of the court was delivered by: AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Keystone Consolidated Industries ("Keystone") filed a five
count First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against defendants Conseco. Medical
Insurance Company ("Conseco") and Employee Benefits Corporation ("EBC"),
alleging breach of contract against Conseco. (Count I) and EBC (Count IV),
negligent misrepresentation against Conseco. (Count III) and EBC (Count
V), and estoppel against Conseco. (Count II).
EBC moved for summary judgment on Counts IV and V. For the reasons
stated herein, EBC's motion is granted.
Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment has the
burden of establishing the lack of any genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323, 106 So. Ct. 2548, 2552
(1986). A genuine issue of triable fact exists only if "the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party," Pugh v. City of Attica, 259. F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505,
2510 (1986)). A party will successfully oppose summary judgment only if
it presents "definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." Equal
Opportunity Comm'n v. Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Court "considers the evidentiary record in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, and draws all reasonable inferences in his
favor." Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir.
The Court first addresses Keystone's failure to comply with Local Rule
56.1, which governs summary judgment briefing in the Northern District of
Illinois. L.R. 56.1. Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to
provide a "statement of material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a
judgment as a matter of law." L.R. 56. 1(a)(3). The opposing party must
then file "a concise response to the movant's statement," in which the
nonmoving party must "admit or deny each factual statement proffered by
the defendant . . ., and designate with specificity and particularity
those material facts believed to establish a genuine dispute for trial."
Greer v. Board of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th
Cir. 2001). The nonmoving party may also file a statement of additional
facts that require the denial of a summary judgment. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B).
The moving party must submit a reply addressing each additional fact. In
its Rule 56.1 response, Keystone consistently fails to include "specific references to the affidavits,
parts of the record, and other supporting materials" as required by Local
Rule 56.1. The consequences of Keystone's failure to adhere to Local Rule
56.1 are discussed below.
Keystone is an employer that provides its employees with medical
coverage via a self-funded plan (the "Plan"). (R. 43-1, FAC ¶¶ 1, 7.) EBC
is an insurance broker that administered the Plan for Keystone. (Id. ¶¶
2, 8.) Keystone sought to obtain stop-loss coverage for the Plan, (Id. ¶¶
2, 8.) On October 19, 1999 EBC submitted a bid package on behalf of
Keystone to the entire market of insurers who write stop-loss policies
for self-funded medical plans. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 9; R. 51-1, Def.'s Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts ("Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement") ¶ 3(a); R.
54-1, Pl.'s Response Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Pl.'s Rule
56.1 Response") ¶ 3(a).) Conseco. responded to EBC's bid request with
bids on December 14 and 17, 1999. (Id. ¶ 3(f).) Conseco unambiguously
stated that it based its bids on the information that Keystone provided
to Conseco. (Id.) Keystone verbally committed to award its business to
Conseco. on December 28, 1999. (Id. ¶ 30).)
Conseco. issued a reinsurance treaty with an effective date of January
1, 2000 that outlined Keystone's coverage. (Pearl Aff. ¶ 11.) Conseco
issued a copy of the reinsurance treaty to Keystone and EBC on September
5, 2000. (Id.) The reinsurance treaty contained an exclusion for
medical bills that resulted from a participant having been injured while
under the influence of alcohol. (R. 51-1, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement
¶ 3(m); R. 54-1, Pl's Rule 56.1 Response & 3(m).) Conseco. never
advised EBC or Keystone that the policy it intended to issue excluded
coverage for alcohol related injuries. (Id. ¶ 3(o).) On March 3, 2000, a Keystone employee covered by the Plan was injured
in a motor vehicle accident while under the influence of alcohol, (R
43-1, FAC ¶¶ 11-12.) On behalf of Keystone, EBC submitted the injured
employee's medical bills to Conseco. for payment. (Id. ¶ 13.) Conseco.
refused to pay the claim, citing the alcohol-related injury exclusion.
(Id. ¶ 14.) Keystone filed suit against Conseco and EBC in this Court.
I. Breach Of Contract (Count IV)
Keystone's breach of contract claim fails because Keystone cannot
establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a contract
existed that obligated EBC ...