Jakobiec v. Merrill Lynch Life Insurance, 711 F.3d 217

Tessier brothers allegedly defrauded Jakobiec family and Beatrice Jakobiec’s estate, including life-insurance proceeds designated for Thaddeus Jakobiec.
Merrill Lynch Life Insurance Co. issued the policy; plaintiffs claim the check was wrongly made out to the Smillie/Fraudulent Trust, breaching the policy and enabling theft.
District court granted summary judgment, holding any breach did not cause plaintiffs’ losses because Tessiers would have stolen regardless.
Two trusts were involved: the Smillie Trust (legitimate beneficiary of the policy) and the Fraudulent Trust ( forged by Tessiers).
Thomas Tessier and Michael Tessier controlled both trusts and devised a scheme to divert proceeds to themselves; the check ultimately went to Thomas’s law firm and was diverted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Merrill Lynch’s alleged breach was the but-for cause of plaintiffs’ damages.	Jakobiec argues breach caused loss by funding theft.	Merrill Lynch argues Tessiers would have stolen regardless of payment.	Yes; but-for causation not shown; district court affirmed summary judgment.

Robert E. Tardiff, Inc. v. Twin Oaks Realty Trust, 546 A.2d 1062 (N.H. 1988) (burden to prove damages caused by breach of contract)
Livingston v. 18 Mile Point Drive, Ltd., 972 A.2d 1001 (N.H. 2009) (Restatement-based damages, but for causation)
Mahoney v. Town of Canterbury, 834 A.2d 227 (N.H. 2003) (injunction-related damages and but-for causation discussed)
Barkan v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc., 627 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (but-for causation in breach of contract)
Citizens Fed. Bank v. United States, 474 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lost profits but-for causation standard in contract)