Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
AG Equipment Company, Suzanne Ash Kurtz v. AIG Life Insurance Company, Mark Heidenreiter
Date: 03-29-2009
Case Number: 07-CV-556
Judge: Claire V. Eagan
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa County
Plaintiff's Attorney: Dana L. Kurtz, Kurtz Law Offices, LLC, Lockport, Illinois and Brian J. Rayment, Kivell, Rayment, Francis, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma
Defendant's Attorney: Mike Carr and Steve Holden, Holden & Carr, Tulsa, Oklahoma
AIG Life took the position in the case that Plaintiff was required to prove its in-house counsel worked 30 hours per week, despite the fact that AG Equipment Company's self-funded Plan document does not contain such language, despite the fact that AIG Life never required such proof from any other employer or for any other AG Equipment Company employee, and despite the fact that the contract between AG Equipment and AIG Life does not contain any such requirement. Defendant AIG Life focused its arguments at trial on this issue, which the Court allowed over Plaintiff's objections. While Plaintiff maintained objections at trial to Defendant's misreading of AG Equipment Company's Plan document and the language of the contract between AG Equipment and AIG Life, which contained no such language, the Court allowed Defendant to proceed on these arguments. Defendant AIG Life has taken the position that will have long-ranging effects for all employers who have self-funded ERISA Plans and who contract with AIG Life for stop loss insurance. The position that AIG Life took in the case allows AIG Life to get out of paying any excess claim by setting the bar so high as to type of proof that AIG Life claims it requires from employers to prove initial and ongoing eligibility.
Judge Eagan granted summary judgment on the bad faith claims prior to trial and dismissed several of the counterclaims brought by AIG Life. The matter went to jury trial on February 19, 2009 on the issue of breach of contract and AIG Life's counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud. The District Court substantially limited Plaintiff's evidence at trial. The jury deliberated for three hours and returned a defense verdict and a verdict in favor of AIG Life on its counterclaims for both breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff has filed post-trial motions based on the numerous errors in the record prior to trial and at trial. Plaintiff has also filed its notice of appeal.
About This Case
What was the outcome of AG Equipment Company, Suzanne Ash Kurtz v. AIG Life Insur...?
The outcome was: Defense verdict on all Plaintiff’s claims and a verdict in favor of AIG Life on its counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud.
Which court heard AG Equipment Company, Suzanne Ash Kurtz v. AIG Life Insur...?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa County, OK. The presiding judge was Claire V. Eagan.
Who were the attorneys in AG Equipment Company, Suzanne Ash Kurtz v. AIG Life Insur...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Dana L. Kurtz, Kurtz Law Offices, LLC, Lockport, Illinois and Brian J. Rayment, Kivell, Rayment, Francis, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant's attorney: Mike Carr and Steve Holden, Holden & Carr, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
When was AG Equipment Company, Suzanne Ash Kurtz v. AIG Life Insur... decided?
This case was decided on March 29, 2009.