Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York

S.D. New York

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York

DecidedJune 11, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-08606

StatusUnknown

This text of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., : : Plaintiff, : : 22 Civ. 8606 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: The Court will hear oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 91, 95, on July 2, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 12D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The Court anticipates allocating thirty minutes per side, with an opportunity for rebuttal. Among other issues implicated in the parties’ motions, the parties should be prepared to address: • Whether New York’s substantive limit on the availability of reformation where parties contract around contingent events affects Defendant’s reformation defenses in light of the Policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision. See Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 489 N.E.2d 231, 234 (N.Y. 1986) (“[R]eformation based upon mistake is not available where the parties purposely contract based upon uncertain or contingent events.”). • Whether a latent ambiguity exists in the Policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision which precludes the entry of summary judgment. See Ezrasons, Inc. v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 89 F.4th 388, 396 (2d Cir. 2023) (“When the resolution of a contract depends on an ambiguous term or phrase, summary judgment should usually be denied and the ambiguity submitted to the factfinder for resolution by resort to the extrinsic evidence.”). The Court will hear oral argument on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony, Dkts. 78, 79, 83, 86, 88, on July 2, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The Court anticipates allocating thirty minutes per side, with an opportunity for rebuttal. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2025 Vea of 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., : : Plaintiff, : : 22 Civ. 8606 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: The Court will hear oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 91, 95, on July 2, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 12D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The Court anticipates allocating thirty minutes per side, with an opportunity for rebuttal. Among other issues implicated in the parties’ motions, the parties should be prepared to address: • Whether New York’s substantive limit on the availability of reformation where parties contract around contingent events affects Defendant’s reformation defenses in light of the Policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision. See Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 489 N.E.2d 231, 234 (N.Y. 1986) (“[R]eformation based upon mistake is not available where the parties purposely contract based upon uncertain or contingent events.”). • Whether a latent ambiguity exists in the Policy’s Misstatement of Age Provision which precludes the entry of summary judgment. See Ezrasons, Inc. v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 89 F.4th 388, 396 (2d Cir. 2023) (“When the resolution of a contract depends on an ambiguous term or phrase, summary judgment should usually be denied and the ambiguity submitted to the factfinder for resolution by resort to the extrinsic evidence.”). The Court will hear oral argument on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony, Dkts. 78, 79, 83, 86, 88, on July 2, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12D of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The Court anticipates allocating thirty minutes per side, with an opportunity for rebuttal. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2025 Vea of 72 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The United States Life Insurance Company In The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-the-united-states-life-insurance-company-in-the-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack