Herzog v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc.
742 F.3d 802
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Decedent Richard Herzog worked for GPI and carried both a basic employer-provided life policy and a paid supplemental life policy naming his wife Maureen as beneficiary.
- Richard was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in September 2008. During open enrollment in late 2008 the supplemental policy was removed from his 2009 benefits; pay stubs show premiums stopped in January 2009.
- After Richard died in April 2009, ABC (the insurer) paid basic policy benefits but denied supplemental-policy benefits as the supplemental coverage was not in effect at death.
- Maureen sued GPI and ABC in state court (removed to federal court under ERISA), alleging the supplemental policy was terminated without Richard’s consent and seeking benefits.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment with documentary evidence (HR affidavit, benefit election records, pay stubs) showing Richard elected to cancel the supplemental policy; Maureen submitted an affidavit alleging GPI cancelled the policy without Richard’s consent.
- The district court struck portions of Maureen’s affidavit for noncompliance with local rules and lack of personal knowledge, and granted summary judgment for Defendants; Maureen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by striking affidavit paragraphs | Herzog: court wrongly struck affidavit paragraphs and deprived her of evidence | Defendants: local rule required opposition; Herzog failed to file opposition and paragraphs lacked personal knowledge | Court: No abuse — sanction permissible under local rules and struck portions lacking personal knowledge |
| Whether a genuine dispute exists about who cancelled supplemental policy | Herzog: timing (diagnosis then cancellation) permits inference GPI/ABC cancelled without Richard’s consent | Defendants: documentary record and HR affidavit show Richard elected to cancel; pay stubs show he knew of change | Court: No genuine dispute — suspicious timing alone is speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on ERISA claim for supplemental benefits | Herzog: circumstantial evidence (timing) creates triable issue | Defendants: produced uncontroverted documentary evidence that coverage was not in effect at death | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no admissible evidence that defendants terminated policy |
| Whether counsel’s failure to pursue discovery or seek more time impacted fairness | Herzog: implied prejudice from limited discovery schedule | Defendants: counsel could have sought Rule 56(d) relief or extended schedule | Court: Not decisive; counsel’s failure to pursue discovery undermined Herzog’s case and she did not seek Rule 56(d) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for motions to strike/abuse of discretion)
- Benuzzi v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 647 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2011) (district courts have broad discretion to enforce local rules)
- Patterson v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc., 589 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Ferraro v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 721 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (construe facts and inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Tubergen v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 517 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2008) (speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Peele v. Burch, 722 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2013) (suspicious timing alone rarely creates a triable issue of fact)