Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00010/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00010-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

LILA SYCKS, ESTATE OF VERNON 

SYCKS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

TRANSAMERICA LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

BANKERS UNITED LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court at Docket 52 are Plaintiffs Lila Sycks and Estate of 

Vernon Sycks’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Declaring the Content 

and Terms of the Insurance Policy. Transamerica Life Insurance Company1

(“Transamerica” or “Defendant”) filed a response in opposition at Docket 58. Plaintiffs

filed a reply at Docket 63. The parties did not request oral argument, which the Court 

1

 The other named defendant, Bankers United Life Assurance Company (“Bankers 

United”), merged into Life Investors Insurance Company of America in 2001, which then merged 

into Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“Transamerica”) in 2008. Docket 58 at 4 n.1. 

Bankers United issued Plaintiffs’ life insurance policy, and Transamerica is the successor-ininterest to Bankers United. Id. at 4. All references to Defendant in this Order shall be read to 

include Bankers United unless otherwise stated.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 2

deems unnecessary for disposition of Plaintiffs’ motion. For the following reasons, 

Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit arises from the lapse of Plaintiffs’ Last Survivor Flexible 

Premium Interest Indexed Universal Life Insurance Policy Number B119812 (the 

“Policy”).2

 The Court previously provided an overview of the case’s factual background 

in its Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 

with Prejudice at Docket 47.3

 The Court assumes familiarity here.

As relevant here, Plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment as to the content 

and terms of the Policy.4

 Plaintiffs assert that Bankers United issued a version of the Policy 

on June 25, 1993, that differs from the version currently in Defendant’s possession and 

which Defendant asserts is the operative version.5

 The parties do not dispute much of the 

Policy’s contents, as Defendant acknowledges that “the distinctions between the two copies 

of the Policy are minor and immaterial to the issues in this lawsuit.”6

 However, 

Transamerica asserts that the operative version of the Policy contains “additional 

2 Docket 1-1 at 11–21 (Compl.).

3

 The Court issued a subsequent order at Docket 56 clarifying a clerical error in its order 

at Docket 47, but the factual overview provided at Docket 47 otherwise remains accurate.

4

 Docket 52 at 1. 5

 Docket 52 at 4–6; Docket 58 at 2. The version of the Policy Plaintiffs contend is 

operative is Exhibit 1 to the Sycks’ complaint, which is located at Docket 9-1 at 7–38. Docket 52 

at 1–2.

6

 Docket 58 at 2. Specifically, Defendant maintains that the “material terms of the Policy 

that are essential to resolving this lawsuit are contained in Form B250.00,” which “discuss the 

parties [sic] obligations in relation to the premium and lapse of the Policy.” Id. at 5. Defendant 

concedes that “the distinctions [between it and Plaintiffs’ versions of Form B250.00] are minor 

and do not impact the material terms.” Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 3

documents . . . that should also be considered part of the Policy contract.”7 These additional 

documents take the form of a signed “sales illustration”; a signed amendment to Plaintiffs’ 

insurance application; and two merger endorsements reflecting Bankers United’s mergers

with other entities, including its successor’s merger with Transamerica (collectively, the 

“Additional Documents”).

8

 In Transamerica’s view, the Additional Documents “should 

be included in the Entire Contract” representing the Policy either as part of Plaintiffs’ 

insurance application or as subsequent amendments or endorsements thereto.

9

Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking a declaration that the operative version of 

the Policy (1) is the copy filed with the Sycks’ complaint and now located at Docket 9-1,

and (2) excludes the Additional Documents.10 Because this lawsuit concerns the Policy’s 

interpretation, including whether the Policy lapsed in 2021 when Plaintiffs did not pay 

additional premiums at Transamerica’s request, the determination of the operative version 

of the Policy is an essential step in this case’s ultimate disposition.11

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court must “grant summary 

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party bears the burden 

7 Id. at 5–6. 8

 Id. at 5–6 (first citing Docket 60-2; then citing Docket 60-3; then citing Docket 60-4;

then citing Docket 60-5; and then citing Docket 60-6).

9 Id. at 10. 10 Docket 52 at 1–2, 6. Plaintiffs do not expressly request a declaration excluding the 

Additional Documents from the operative version of the Policy, but they do so implicitly through 

their request that the Court declare that the Policy is “limited to” the copy filed at Docket 9-1. Id.

at 1–2, 6.

11 Docket 52 at 5–6; Docket 58 at 4–5.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 3 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 4

of showing that “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”12 

If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

“designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’”13 The nonmoving party cannot rely on “mere allegations or denials”; instead, the evidence must be 

such “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”14

To support or defend against a motion for summary judgment, the parties 

must (1) cite to particular portions of materials in the record, including, but not limited to,

depositions, documents, declarations, or other discovery materials; or (2) demonstrate that 

the materials cited fail to establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the 

opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support a factual allegation.

15 A 

court may, but need not, consider materials in the record to which the parties do not cite.16 

A court’s focus should be on the admissibility, rather than the form, of the substance of 

evidence offered.17

In reviewing the record on a motion for summary judgment, a court must 

“view the facts and draw reasonable inferences” in the light most favorable to the non12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). 13 Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 248 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

14 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (citations omitted).

15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th 

Cir. 2001). 17 See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (“At summary 

judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible 

at trial.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 4 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 5

moving party.18 No genuine dispute exists “where the only evidence presented is 

‘uncorroborated and self-serving’ testimony.”19

III. DISCUSSION

To prevail on their motion, Plaintiffs must show (1) the absence of any 

genuine dispute as to a material fact regarding the contents of the Policy and (2) that they 

are entitled to judgment as a material of law. 

A. The Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiffs offer two pieces of evidence to support their motion: (1) the 

version of the Policy in their possession and (2) Ms. Sycks’ deposition testimony 

purportedly authenticating the content of that version of the Policy.20 Plaintiffs note that 

the version of the Policy in their possession contains a provision stating that the “entire 

contract” consists of “[a]ll of its pages, the applications, copies of which are attached at 

issue, and all endorsements and imprinted or attached riders.”21 In their view, this clause 

limits the parties’ insurance contract to only the version of the Policy filed with the Court 

at Docket 9-1 and not the Additional Documents.22

In response, Defendant argues that the Additional Documents are part of the 

Policy because they accompanied the Policy and were signed by the Sycks around the time 

18 Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (citations omitted).

19 Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996)) (citing Johnson v. Wash. Metro. 

Transit Auth., 883 F.2d 125, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). 20 Docket 52 at 4; see also Docket 9-1 (Plaintiffs’ copy of the Policy).

21 Docket 52 at 3 (quoting Docket 9-1 at 24).

22 Id. at 5–6.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 5 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 6

the contract was formed or were merger endorsements properly appended to the Policy.

23 

In support, Defendant points to portions of Ms. Sycks’ deposition testimony stating that 

she “[m]ust have” signed one of the sales illustrations and the amendment and that she 

recognized her and Mr. Sycks’ signatures.

24 As for the merger endorsements, Defendant 

contends, without providing authority, that they “are required be part of the Entire 

Contract.”25

B. Analysis

The determination of whether a genuine issue of material fact exists often is 

a “close question.”26 It is “the burden of the moving party to demonstrate the absence of 

any material fact.”27 A material fact is one that might allow a reasonable jury to return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party.28 A court’s function at the summary judgment stage is 

not to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations, but to determine if there are 

genuine issues for trial.29

Based on the record before the Court and the parties’ briefing, there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact concerning the bulk of the Policy’s contents, that is, 

the portions of the Policy found in Exhibit 1 to the Sycks’ complaint and filed with the 

Court at Docket 9-1. Defendant states that its version of Form B250.00 is “slightly 

23 Docket 58 at 6–9. Defendant acknowledges that the documents in its possession include 

a copy of the sales illustration that is unsigned, but it also directs the Court’s attention to a copy of 

the illustration that the Sycks purportedly did sign. Id. at 6–8. 24 Id. at 8 (citations omitted).

25 Id.

26 T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 27 Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

28 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 29 Id. at 249.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 6 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 7

different” from Plaintiffs’ version, with only “minor” distinctions that “do not impact the 

material terms.”30 Defendant also expressed a willingness to stipulate that this version of 

the Policy—Exhibit 1 of the Sycks’ complaint—is the operative version, albeit on the 

condition that Plaintiffs agreed that the sales illustration is part of the contract.31 Based on 

the parties’ representations, the Court finds that no genuine dispute of a material fact exists 

as to the core contents of the Policy and that the copy of the Policy in Plaintiffs’ possession 

at Docket 9-1, pages 7–38, includes the operative version of the Policy for the purposes of 

this case. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to summary judgment on this point.

However, a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the operative 

version of the Policy also includes the Additional Documents. Plaintiffs’ version of the 

Policy purportedly does not contain these documents,

32 whereas Defendant has these 

documents in its possession and asserts that the Policy does include them.

33 Based on the 

Court’s review of these documents, it appears that the Sycks did indeed sign at least some 

of the Additional Documents, namely, an amendment to the insurance application and the 

sales illustration.34 One of those documents is mostly illegible, but the other, which 

contains an amendment to the Sycks’ insurance application and a sales illustration, is

legible.35 Although these documents appear to have been executed in July 1993,36 nearly 

30 Docket 58 at 5. 31 Id. at 2. 32 See generally Docket 9-1. 33 Docket 52 at 5–6. 34 Docket 60-3 (signed amendment with some illegible pages); Docket 60-4 (signed 

amendment with sales illustration).

35 Docket 60-3 (mostly illegible); Docket 60-4 (legible).

36 Docket 60-3; Docket 60-4.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 7 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 8

two months after the Sycks submitted their application for the Policy,37 there is no 

indication from the record that they were not properly added to or incorporated within the 

Policy as part of the application, amendments, or endorsements.38 Ms. Sycks indicated in 

her deposition testimony that the amendment and sales illustration “look[] like . . . a copy 

of the paperwork that we filled out to buy the policy.”39 She recognized that a facsimile 

transmitting these documents came from the secretary of the insurance salesperson who 

sold her and Mr. Sycks the policy.40 She also recognized her and Mr. Sycks’ signatures on

the amendment and sales illustration and testified that she does not “doubt that [she] did 

sign it.”41 Ms. Sycks further testified that does not think she would have signed a document 

without reading it.42

Based on the above, it is not clear from a factual standpoint whether the 

Policy includes or incorporates the Additional Documents. Defendant offered evidence 

rebutting Plaintiffs’ claim that the operative version of the Policy excludes the Additional 

Documents in the form of the aforementioned documents that contain the Sycks’ signatures

and Ms. Sycks’ testimony indicating that the signatures and documents are authentic. 

Plaintiffs offer no explanation or rebuttal concerning the Additional Documents. For 

37 Docket 9-1 at 30. 38 Defendant also contends that the merger endorsements must be incorporated into the 

Policy, but its briefing does not identify any legal support for this proposition. Docket 58 at 8–

10. Accordingly, this order does not address the merits of that unsubstantiated assertion.

39 Docket 59-1 at 5:24–25. 40 Docket 59-1 at 6:1–12. 41 Docket 59-1 at 8:1–20. 42 Docket 59-1 at 9:7–9.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 8 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 9

example, Plaintiffs have not credibly argued or shown that the signatures on the Additional 

Documents or the Additional Documents themselves are inauthentic.43

Instead, the sole source of legal authority Plaintiffs cite in their motion to

support their contention that the Additional Documents must be excluded is the “entire 

contract” provision.44 Although the Policy contains this provision, it is established that, 

under Alaska law, an insurance policy may be amended.45 Additionally, Alaska Stat.

§ 21.42.230 expressly allows a “rider, endorsement, or application that is part of the policy” 

to “amplif[y], extend[], or modif[y]” an insurance contract.46 Plaintiffs fail to show the 

absence of a dispute concerning whether the Additional Documents are riders, 

endorsements, or applications constituting part of, and modifying, the Policy. Nor do 

Plaintiffs identify any caselaw supporting their contention that the Policy’s “entire 

contract” provision excludes the Additional Documents.

Likewise, Plaintiffs’ reply fails to eradicate the presence of a genuine dispute. 

There, Plaintiffs again focus on the “entire contract” provision, arguing that the sales 

illustration cannot be construed as an “application,” “endorsement,” or “rider” as those 

terms are used in the Policy.

47 Plaintiffs assert that, through the “entire contract” provision, 

“Transamerica clearly intended that [the Additional Documents] would NOT be included 

43 See generally Docket 52. 44 See generally Docket 52. 45 See Maynard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 902 P.2d 1328, 1331 (Alaska 1995)

(interpreting endorsement amending an insurance policy’s medical payments coverage).

46 See State v. Oriental Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 776, 779 (Alaska 1989)

(“[W]here the provisions of an effective endorsement conflict with those of the insurance policy, 

the endorsement controls.” (citing 43 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance § 280 (1982))). 47 Docket 63 at 2.

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 9 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 10

in the contract.”48 And to the extent this provision is ambiguous, Plaintiffs urge the Court 

to interpret it favor of Plaintiffs as the insurance consumers.49 This conclusory allegation 

contains no legal support, as it remains possible that the Policy incorporates the Additional 

Documents as part of the Sycks’ application or as an amendment thereto. For instance, a 

facsimile from the insurance salesperson’s secretary expressly identifies a “signed 

amendment” and “signed illustration,” indicating that both are “delivery requirements.”50

Furthermore, a document titled “Amendment to Application for Life Insurance” contains 

the Sycks’ signatures, dated July 16, 1993.51 And another facsimile dated July 26, 1993, 

purports to provide the Sycks with a “completed amendment” and “signed illustration.”52 

The attached document contains the Sycks’ signatures and is stamped as “received” on 

July 26, 1993.53 It also contains the sales illustration, which contains the Sycks’ 

signatures.54 It is possible that these documents became part of the Sycks’ application and, 

in turn, the insurance contract between the Sycks and Bankers United.

Plaintiffs contend that “Alaska has specifically regulated the content of any 

life insurance ‘illustration’” to prohibit fraudulent representations concerning premium

payments.55 Plaintiffs are correct that Alaska specifically and carefully regulates sales 

illustrations in insurance contracts, but the cited provisions of the Alaska Administrative 

48 Id. at 3–4. 49 Id. at 3 n.8 (citation omitted).

50 Docket 60-3 at 2. 51 Docket 60-3 at 7. 52 Docket 60-4 at 2. 53 Docket 60-4 at 3. 54 Docket 60-4 at 4–7. 55 Docket 63 at 3 (quoting Alaska Admin. Code tit. 3, § 28.815(c)(7)) (citing Alaska 

Admin. Code tit. 3, § 28.800–849).

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 10 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 11

Code do not prohibit the use of sales illustrations outright or exclude them from an 

insurance contract.56

In light of the above, it is conceivable that the Policy application included 

some of the Additional Documents or was subject to amendments or endorsements 

containing or incorporating some or all of the Additional Documents into the Policy. Based 

on the record before the Court, the Court cannot discern whether the Additional Documents 

are part of the Policy, and as such a genuine dispute exists. Because the Additional 

Documents may bear on the fundamental issue disputed here—how the Policy’s coverage 

and premium provisions should be interpreted—this genuine dispute concerns a material 

fact. Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown the absence of a genuine dispute as to this material 

fact, and their motion for partial summary judgment as to whether the Policy excludes the 

Additional Documents must be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

As discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

Declaring the Content and Terms of the Insurance Policy at Docket 52 is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are entitled to the following declaration:

For the purposes of this litigation, the content and terms of the 

Last Survivor Flexible Premium Interest Indexed Universal

Life Insurance Policy Number B119812 issued to Lila Sycks 

56 See generally Alaska Admin. Code. tit. 3, § 28.815; cf. Wren v. Transamerica Life Ins. 

Co., No. EDCV21-178 JGB (SPx), 2021 WL 2070203, at *1, *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2021) (noting

life insurance contract that incorporated a sales illustration into the policy).

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 11 of 12
Sycks et al. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. et al. Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 12 

and Vernon Sycks include the document filed as Exhibit 1, 

pages 1–32, of the Sycks’ December 6, 2021, complaint, which 

is filed with this Court at Docket 9-1, pages 7–38. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

 /s/ Joshua M. Kindred 

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 73 Filed 07/27/23 Page 12 of 12