Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted Plaintiff Cheri Shippy relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), finding that additional discovery could create a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the denial of accidental death insurance benefits. The court denied Banner Life Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice and granted leave to file a second motion when appropriate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because additional discovery could reveal facts essential to opposing Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
- Whether Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice while discovery remained open.
Holdings
- Rule 56(d) relief was appropriate because Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific additional discovery that could create a genuine issue of material fact relevant to coverage and the insurer's good-faith handling of the claim.
- Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice, and Defendant was granted leave to file a second motion for summary judgment if or when appropriate.
Key quotations
“This showing cannot, of course, predict with accuracy precisely what further discovery will reveal; the whole point of discovery is to learn what a party does not know or, without further information, cannot prove.” (at 2)
“There is still time to conduct discovery in this matter, and Plaintiff sufficiently avers that such discovery may create a genuine issue of material fact that would defeat Defendant’s Motion.” (at 3)
“Therefore, Rule 56(d) relief is appropriate, and the Court will grant Plaintiff that relief.” (at 3-4)
Factual background
Cheri Shippy sought accidental-death insurance benefits after her husband died in a three-car collision. Banner denied the claim in part on the ground that Mr. Shippy was street racing, which allegedly triggered a racing exclusion in the policy. Discovery remained open when Banner moved for summary judgment, and Shippy sought depositions and written discovery concerning whether a race occurred, the police report, Banner's interpretation and application of the exclusion, and the investigation underlying the denial.
Procedural history
Plaintiff sued Banner Life Insurance Company in state court on claims for declaratory judgment, estoppel from denying policy coverage, and insurance bad faith; the action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Banner moved for summary judgment before discovery had closed. The court concluded that Plaintiff had adequately shown that additional discovery could produce evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact and therefore denied the motion without prejudice under Rule 56(d).