IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KATHRYN GARNER, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 709

)

RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”) and

Interact of Michigan, Inc. Life Insurance Plan have moved under

Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint

brought against them by the two daughters and the son of decedent

Patricia Bromfield (all three are the beneficiaries of the death

benefit provided for under insurance coverage supplied by

Reliance). Plaintiffs have now filed a detailed memorandum in

opposition to such dismissal, so that the motion is ripe for

disposition.

Although the reader could not tell this from the arguments

that have been advanced by defendants’ memorandum in support of

their motion, for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes the allegations in the

Complaint (together will all reasonable inferences from those

allegations) must be accepted as true. Indeed, defendants’ Mem.

at 2 purports to say as much:

This court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against

LINA because Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00709 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:150
See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99

(1957).1

To put the matter succinctly, plaintiffs’ responsive

memorandum successfully demolishes the arguments by which

defendants seek to justify Reliance’s conduct --conduct that, as 2

plaintiffs portray it, is not only actionable but thoroughly

reprehensible. What the Complaint portrays is an insurer that

exemplifies the kind of metaphorical rotten apple that

regrettably can taint the entire equally metaphorical barrel of

the insurance industry--an insurer that exhibits the sort of

conduct that leads legislative bodies to enact statutes such as

Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155).

Accordingly the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is denied, and

defendants are ordered to answer the Complaint on or before

April 20, 2012. In the meantime, the previously-scheduled

April 13 status hearing will remain in place, to discuss the

 [Footnote by this Court] That statement is bizarre: 1

LINA (Life Insurance Company of North America) certainly has

nothing to do with this case, and the use of “Plaintiff” in the

singular and the comparable use of “his claim” and “him” are the

tipoff to defense counsel’s sloppiness in having copied verbatim

a statement from some other lawsuit handled by her firm. 

Moreover, the memorandum’s citation to Conley is ironic in light

of that case’s overly broad statement having been curbed by the

well-known Twombly-Iqbal canon (although that makes no difference

where, as here, a complaint reflects satisfaction of the

plausibility requirement added by those cases).

 It should be emphasized, of course, that this Court makes 2

no findings as to the facts of Reliance’s conduct--it simply

credits plaintiffs’ version, as Rule 12(b)(6) requires.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00709 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:151
planning needed to bring this action to the point of its ultimate

resolution on the merits. One final note: It is also quite

ironic that plaintiffs’ claims here stem from Patricia

Bromfield’s asserted detrimental reliance on what proved to be

both misleading information and misleading omissions of

information on the part of the defendant insurer--something that,

if indeed true, would seem to make the presence of “Reliance” in

the insurer’s name a contradiction in terms.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 5, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00709 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/05/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:152