Zweiback Family L.P. v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 907 N.W.2d 700

Eugene Zweiback purchased two variable life insurance policies from Lincoln Benefit Life (LBL) in 2005 after discussions with brokers Dennis Tubbergen and Brian Schuster; he paid about $1 million in premiums and later reduced policy face values when additional premiums were demanded.
Zweiback sues Tubbergen, Schuster, and LBL for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, seeking reformation/replacement of the policies.
Tubbergen asserted an arbitration defense and later (about 1.5 years after answering) moved to compel arbitration based on two "Investor Profile" agreements Zweiback signed in 2005 and 2007 that contained broad pre-dispute arbitration clauses with USA Financial/USA Advanced Planners.
Tubbergen submitted an affidavit stating he was an officer/registered representative of USA Financial and that he submitted the investor profiles with the variable policy applications; the affidavit did not show Tubbergen was a signatory to the profiles or fell within defined terms like "Related Persons" or "Investment Custodian."
The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding the arbitration clauses "concern[ed] or relat[ed] to an insurance policy" and were unenforceable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2602.01(f)(4); the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds (failure of proof that Tubbergen was covered by the agreements).

Issue	Zweiback's Argument	Tubbergen's Argument	Held
Whether Zweiback agreed to arbitrate disputes with Tubbergen	Zweiback contends the arbitration agreements (with USA Financial/Advanced Planners) do not bind Tubbergen because he is not a signatory or shown to be within defined covered categories	Tubbergen contends Zweiback signed investor profiles with broad arbitration clauses and that Tubbergen, as an officer/registered rep of USA Financial, is covered (or otherwise bound)	Held: Tubbergen failed to prove he was a signatory or within defined covered persons; record insufficient to show agreement applies to disputes with him; motion denied and affirmed
Whether the arbitration agreements are unenforceable as "concerning or relating to an insurance policy" under § 25-2602.01(f)(4)	Zweiback argued the agreements related to insurance policies and thus were invalid under the statute	Tubbergen argued the underlying variable life products were securities, not "insurance policies," and thus the statutory bar did not apply	Court did not decide statute-based issue on appeal; it affirmed denial on failure-of-proof grounds, making statutory question unnecessary to resolve

Speece v. Allied Professionals Ins. Co., 289 Neb. 75, 853 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2014) (discusses arbitration, insurance, and preemption/McCarran-Ferguson considerations)
Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 293 Neb. 277, 876 N.W.2d 899 (Neb. 2016) (refusal to compel arbitration is not appealable where no arbitration agreement is alleged or offered)
RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 (Neb. 2014) (party not a signatory failed to make prima facie showing they were subject to arbitration)
Koricic v. Beverly Enters. - Neb., 278 Neb. 713, 773 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2009) (arbitration agreements reviewed under basic contract principles)