Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Life Plans, Inc. v. Security Life of Denver Insurance Co.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 6, 2017

LIFE PLANS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITY LIFE OF DENVER INSURANCE COMPANY and ING U.S., INC. n/k/a VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants. LIFE PLANS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
ING U.S., INC. n/k/a VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant.

          DEFENDANT SECURITY LIFE OF DENVER INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

          Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

         Defendant Security Life of Denver Insurance Company (“SLD”), by its attorneys, pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for its Motion for Directed Verdict, states as follows:

         I. Introduction

         LPI has sued SLD for breach of the Joint Cooperation Agreement (“JCA”) and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. SLD has asserted LPI's failure to mitigate as an affirmative defense. No reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient basis to find for LPI, for the following reasons:

(1) SLD did not breach the JCA:
(a) A condition precedent to SLD's obligation to offer Peak was not met, and
(b) SLD had a right to terminate the JCA.
(2) LPI has not proven its own performance under the JCA.
(3) SLD did not breach any covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
(4) LPI cannot recover lost profits.
(5) LPI has not proven trailing commissions.
(6) LPI can recover nominal damages at most.
(7) LPI failed to mitigate.

         II. Standards

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may . . . resolve the issue against the party[] and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50. The standard for deciding a motion for directed verdict is well-settled:

[The Court] must determine whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and combined with all reasonable inferences that might be drawn therefrom, provides a sufficient probative basis for a verdict ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.