The Honor able Rober t Holmes Be ll, United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Western District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0387n.06 No. 09-1081 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

LAWRENCE D. K ORN, ) ) P lai nt iff-A ppe lla nt , ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE ) UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T v. ) COURT F OR THE E ASTERN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIG AN ) P AUL REVERE LIFE INSURANC E ) CO M P AN H, ) ) Defendan t-Appellee. )

BEFORE: SILER and ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ges; BELL, District Judge. * P ER CURI AM. On Fe bruar y 12, 2004, Plaintiff-Appellant L awr ence D. Korn ( “Kor n”) fi le d a c omp la int

in t he Un ite d St a te s D ist

ri c t Co ur t f or the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig an a g a ins t Def endant- Appellee Paul Revere L ife Insuranc e Company (“Paul Reve r e ” ) a ll e g in g

that Paul Revere brea ched the terms of a

disability insurance policy

by deny ing K orn’s c laim for be nefits. On Oc tober 30, 2008, Paul Revere filed a motion for summary judgme nt on this c laim. On November 13, 2008, Korn filed a

motion to amend his complaint to add a second brea ch of contra ct claim for brea ch of

a regulatory settlement ag ree ment betwee n Paul Re vere and the insurance regulators of various states, an ag ree ment to which Korn contends he is a thi rd-pa rty benef iciary

. On Dec ember

31, 2008,No. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

Unless otherwise indicated, all ref ere nces to “ Dkt. No.” ref er to the distri ct co u rt docket 1 sheet. 2 the district court de nied Korn’ s motion t o amend his complaint and g rante d Paul Revere ’s motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ko rn

a pp e a ls b oth

or de rs . I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound I n 1988, Korn purc hased a n insurance policy (“Policy ”) from Paul Re vere , which entitled him to mont hly

pay ments in the event that he beca me totally disabled. The Policy define s a “total disability ” as a

disability beca use of whic h the insured is “unable to perfor m the important duties of [hi s] Occupation,” a

nd is “ under the regular and persona l c are of a Phy sician.” ( Kor n v . P au l R e v e re Life Ins. Co. , No. 04-CV-70821 (E.D. Mich. filed Feb. 12, 2004), Dkt. No. 64, Ex . A ¶ 1.9.) The 1 Pol ic y re qu ir e s Kor

n to pro vid e Pa

ul Re ve re wi th “p ro of of los s” fo r ea c h mont h for wh ic h he c la ims benef its. ( Id . at ¶ 9.4.) Proof

of l oss expli citly includes proof of prior e arning s, such as pe rsonal and business tax returns. (

Id. ) Korn pra cticed la

w – he was a spokesman and marketer for personal injury case s until May of 20 00 , w he n K or

n c on te nd s that ps y c hiatr ic pr ob le ms, de pr e ssi on , a nd me mor y pr ob le ms l e d h im to abandon his pra ctice. K orn filed a claim fo r b enef

its under the Policy

on October

14, 2000. B e c a us e an in sure d is on ly

c on sid e re d to ta lly dis a

ble d, and thu s e nti tle d to be ne fi ts, if he is “ un a

ble to perfor m the important duties of [his ] Occupation,” Paul Reve re r equire d that Korn ’s claim for be ne fi ts i nc lud e a n “ oc c up a tio na l de sc ri pti on ” fo rm , wh ic h re qu e ste d Ko rn to “ lis t th e du tie s o f [h is]

o c c u p a ti o n ( s ) in

o r d e r o f th e ir im p o rta n c e , w it h a d e ta il e d d e s c r ip ti o no f e a c h

. ” ( D kt. N o . 6 4 , E x. D. ) K or n li ste d h is m os t im

po rt ant o c c up a tio na l dutie s a s c omp any sp ok e sp e rs on , s tr a te g icNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

3 planning /resea

rch, c lient sign up, c ourt appe ara nces, a nd commer ci al-making, in that orde r. ( Id. ) Along with his claim form, Korn submitted medica l examination reports from Doc tors Walt er Sa b o ta , Co r y d o nCl ar k , an d Cl if f o r d L e v in in s u p p o rt o f h is c la im f

o r b e n e f it s . ( D kt. N o . 7 1 , E x. N.) On

Oc tob e r 2 3, 20 00 , Pa

ul R e ve re no tif

ie d Kor n tha t it ha d r e c e ive d h is c la im f or be ne fi ts, and that a c ustomer ca

re spe ci al i s t would soon contac t him reg ardingadditional information that would be nee ded to satisfy the proof- of-loss re quirement. On O ctober 3 1 , 2000, customer c are sp e c ia lis t N a ta sh a

F arl and c on ta c te d K or

n b y te le ph one and

int e rv ie we d h im r e g ard inghis c la im. This interview re sulted in a seven- pag e memora ndum in which Ms. Far land documente d the substance of

Korn’s c laim for bene fi t s . M s . Farland a lso told Korn that Paul Revere w ould be requiringadditional information from him for pur poses of the pr oof-of

-loss require ment. On November 1, 2000, Paul Rever e sent a letter to Korn r equesting information per taining to K o r n ’ s c o u rt a

p p e ar an c e s d

u r in g th e tw e lv e mo n th s p r e c e d in g h is d is a b il it y , h is b u s in e s s and persona l tax returns f

or 1998 and 1999, a

n attending phy sician’s stateme nt cer tify ing K orn’s disability , the name a

nd addre ss of Korn’ s malprac tice car rier, and additional information about the

n a tu r e o f K o r n ’ s la w p r a c ti c e , a s s o li c it e d

thr o u g h an“ a tt o r

n e y qu e s ti o n n a ir e . ” ( D kt. N o . 6 4 , E x. H.) Paul Rever e noted that it nee ded this inform at i o n to discern the pr imary duties of Korn’ s occupation and the extent to which Korn would be a ble to perf

orm those duties g oing forwa rd. ( Id. ) Korn submi tted the attending phy sician’s stateme nt on November 9, 2000, and the c ompletedNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

Paul Revere contends that it neve r re ce ived the questionnaire , but for purpose s of the 2 summary ju d gment motion the Court mus t view the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to Korn. United States v. Die bold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). 4 attorney questionnaire on N ovember 12, 2000. On Dec ember 1, 2000, Korn notified Ms. F arla nd 2 that he was in the process of gathe ring the remaining information, but that he believe d many of the reque sted docu m ents wer e not re levant to his claim. ( Id. at Ex. J .) On De cembe r 6, 2000, Paul Revere reiter ated its reque st for information pertaining to Korn’s court appeara nces, tax returns a

nd malprac tice provide r. (

Id. at Ex

. I .) On J anuar

y 12, 2001, without submitt ing any documents, Korn notified Ms. Fa

rland that he was “ ref

err ing [her] correspondenc e” to his attorne y , Andre w Kocha nowski, and aske d Ms. F arla nd to r edire ct her reque sts f or information to him. (

Id. at Ex. L .) Ms. Far land attempt e d

to c ontact Mr. Koc hanowski by telephone but wa s unsucce ssful. On Fe bruar y 8, 20 01 , Pa

ul R e ve re de nie d Kor

n’ s cla im fo r be ne fi ts on the g ro un d tha t the e vid e nc e pr ov ide d d id not support Korn’s c laim that he was una ble to work, a

nd on the g round that he ha d not satisfied the proof- of-loss re quirement by failing to sub m i t t h e information requested in the N ovember 1 and Dec ember

6 letters. (

Id. at Ex. N.) On Octobe r 29, 2003, attorne y David Hollar , on behalf of Korn, reque sted and re ceive d from Paul Revere Korn’s c omplete claim file. B ased on the information contained in the file, Mr. Hollar wrote a letter to Paul Revere concluding that the evidenc e did, in fac t, support Korn’s c laim that he

was una ble to work. (D kt. No. 71, Ex . O.) However, Mr. H ollar’s letter did not ex plain Korn’s failure to provide the information t hat had been re quested. ( Id. at 5.) Paul Re vere did not r espond to Mr. Hollar’s le tter.No. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

Although K orn’s c omplaint seeks bene fits for the monthly periods beginningSeptember of 3 2000, this Court has previously ruled that a statute of limit ations issue preve nts Korn from c laiming any benef its for monthly

periods prior to Nove mber of 2000. Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co. , 238 F. App’ x 109, 111 (6th Cir. 2007). 5 On Fe bruar

y 12, 2004, Korn sued Paul Reve re f or bre ach of contra ct ar g uing that Paul Revere wrong fully

withheld disability benef its that wer e due unde r the Policy

. The district cour t require d 3 that court-supe rvised di s c o v e r y b e c ompleted by

September 30, 2008, that witness list s be exchang ed by September 16, 2008, and that all pre- trial motions be filed by October 30, 2008. (Dkt. No. 44.) On Octobe r 30, 2008, Paul Rever e filed a motion for sum m ar y j udg ment arguing that Korn had fa ile d to pro vid e a de qu a te pr oo f of los s to qu a lif

y fo r b e ne fi ts, and

that Pa ul R e ve re wa s e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law. (Dkt. No. 62.) On N ovember 13, 2008, Korn filed a

motion for leave to amend his complaint to st at e an addit ional brea ch of c ontrac t claim based on Paul Reve re’ s alleg ed bre ach of

a re g ulatory

settlement agr eeme nt betwee n it and the insuranc e re g ulators of various states, a

n ag ree ment to w hich Korn contends he is a third-par ty benef iciary . (Dkt. No. 68.) On Dec ember

31, 2008, the district court de nied Korn’ s motion t o amend a nd g rante d Paul Revere ’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. (D kt. No . 8 0. ) K or n a pp e a ls b oth

or de rs . II. Law a nd A nal ys is A. Paul Rev ere’

s Motion for Summary Judgme nt This Court reviews a

g rant of summar

y judgme nt de novo. Sullivan v. Or. Ford, Inc

. , 559 F.3d 594, 594 ( 6th Cir. 2009). The movant i s en t itled to summ ary judgme nt if the pleading s and dis c ov e ry de mon str a te tha

t “ the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov a nt i s ent it led t o ju dg me nt a s a ma tte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c )( 2) . Pa ul R e ve re argue s th a t it

isNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

6 e nti tle d to su mma

ry jud g me nt o n K or

n’ s c la im f

or br e a c h o f t

he Pol icy be c a us e Ko rn fa ile d to

su bmi t a de qu a te pr oo f o f l os s w ith in t he tim e pe ri od

re qu ir e d b y the Pol ic y . T he Pol ic y pr ov ide s: Writt en proof

of loss must be sent to Us within 90 day s afte r t he end of a pe riod for which You a

re c laiming be nefits. . . . We can a lso require rea sonable proof from You of Your: a. Prior Ea

rning s; and b. Monthly

Earning s for the month for which Disability

is claimed. Th is m ay

inc lud e pe rs on a l and

bu sin e ss t a x re tur

ns , f ina nc ia l st ate ments, a c c ounta nt’ s st a te me nts or

oth e r p ro of

a c c e pta ble to U s. (D kt. No . 6 4, Ex. A ¶ 9. 4) Th e Pol ic y a lso pr ov ide s that Pa ul R e ve re ’s ob lig a tio n to make pa y me nts to an insured be g ins only

afte r Paul Rever e re ceive s “satisfac tory ” proof of loss. ( Id. at ¶ 9.6.) On Novembe r 1, 2000, and a g ain on Dec ember 6, 2000, Paul Revere reque sted that Korn pr ov i d e i n f

o r m a t i o n p e rt a i n i n g t o h i s c o u rt a p p e ar an c e s d

u r i n g t h e t w e l v e m o n t h s p r e c e d i ng his disability , his business and persona l tax returns f or 19 9 8 an d 1 999, and the name and a ddress of Ko rn ’s m al p ra ct i ce ca rr i er . Ko rn d o es n o t d en y t h at h e fa i l ed t o s u b m i tt h i s i n fo rm at i o n , al t h o u gh Korn does a

r g u e th a t h e d id

s u b mi t o th e r

“ s u b s ta n ti a l d o c u me n tati o n ” to s u p p o rt h is c la im

f or benef its, including the Oc tober 14, 2000, c laim form, medica l r ecor ds from thre e phy sicians, and the inf or ma tio n c on ve y e d to Ms. F arl and duri ngthe Oc tob e r 3 1, 20 00 , p ho ne int e rv ie w. Ko rn a lso

c on te nd s th a t th e inf

or ma tio n h e fa ile d to su

bmi t w a s n ot r e le va

nt t o h is c la im. Th e pa rt ies a g re e tha

t th e Pol ic y

is n ot a n E RI SA- qu a lif

ie d p oli c y and that Mi c hig an s ta te law g overns Kor

n’s b re ach of

contra ct claim. I f so provided in a n insurance policy , an insured’ s oblig a ti o nto p r o v id e p r o o f o f lo s s is a c o n d it io np r e c e d e n t t o h is r e c e ip t o f b e n e f it s . H o w e v e r, Michig an law r equire s only “substantial comp l i an ce” with the proof- of-loss re quirement. See W estfield Ins. Co. v. Appleton , 1 32 F . App ’x 56 7, 57 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) ; W

ine ho lt v . Ci nc inn ati

In s.No. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

7 Co. , 179 F. Supp. 2d 742, 748-49 (W.D. Mich. 2001) (Quist, J .); Gibson v. Group Ins. Co. , 369 N. W.2 d 4 84 , 4 86 (M ic h. Ct. Ap p. 19 85 ). Sub sta nti a l c omp lia

nc e wi th a pr oo f of los s r e qu ir e me nt: g ene r a ll y me an s th a t th e in s u r e d h a s s u p p li e d s u f

f ic ie n t in f o r mati o n to a ll o w the i n s u re r to investigate the insured’ s claim, estimate its rig hts and liabiliti es, and preve nt fraud a

nd unjust claims from being asser ted, or, alternatively , that the insured has co m p l i ed to the extent to which compliance is possible, in circumstanc es such a s w he re pr oo fs and do c ume ntatio n not sup pli e d ha ve be e n de str oy e d or o the rw ise made una vailable by

rea sons bey ond the power of the insure d. W ine ho lt , 179 F. Supp. 2d at 749 (quoting L ee R. Russ & T homas F. Seg alla, Couch on Insuranc e § 186.36 (3d ed. 2009) ). Althoug h less-than-pe rfe ct compliance with the proof- of-loss re quirement

w il l n o t b a r a n in s u r e d ’ s rec overy

in some circumstanc es, “substantial c ompliance r equire s more than a minimal effor

t.” Id. at 752. “The insured shoul d make a rea sonable effort to provide information

re a so na bly wi thi n it s po sse ssi on and wi th a su ff ic ie nt d e g re e of

pa rt ic ula ri ty to a llo w the ins ur e r t o make a n informed r eview of

the claim.” Id. Korn admits that he failed to provide Paul Revere with information perta ining to his court appea ranc es duringth e t we l v e months prece ding his disability and his business and per sonal tax returns f or 1998 and 1999, e ven th o ug h Paul Revere repe atedly reque sted this information and Korn’s insura

nce policy

expressly identified it as par

t of the proof

-of- loss require ment. I n light of thi s f a ilure , th e Court

c ann ot c on c lud e that K or n s ub sta nti a lly com pl ied with t

he pr oo f- of

-l os s

re qu ir e me nt. Ko rn

wa s o nly e nti tle d to ins ur anc e be ne fi ts if his dis a bil ity re nd e re d him “ un a

ble to perf orm the important duties of [his] Occ upation.” In his in i t i al re q u es t for bene fits, Korn listed

“ c ourt a pp e ara nc e s” a s o ne of

his imp or

tant occup ationa l dutie s. Pr oo f o f K or n’ s in vo lve me nt i n court proc eeding s leading up to his disabili ty , and the extent of this involvement, was ne cessa ry forNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

8 Paul Revere to determine if K orn’s disability neg atively aff ecte d the manner

in which he pr actice d law p ri or to h is d isa

bil ity

. I n the same ve in, Ko rn ’s inc ome pr ior to his dis a bil ity , a s re fl e c te d b y

his 1998 and 1999 tax returns, and w hether that income dec lined in the y ear 2000 and later, she d light

on Ko rn ’s a

bil ity to e ng a g e in the imp or tant du tie s of his law pr a c tic e fo llo wi ng the ons et o f his d i s a b i l i t y. W i t h o u te v i d e n c e s u b s t an t i a t i n g t h e n a tu r e o f

K o r n ’ s l aw p r a c t i c e p r i o r

t o h i s d i s a

b i l i t y, inc lud ingthe e xten t of

his c ourt a pp e ara nc e s, Pa ul Re ve re wo uld have be e n una ble to v e ri fy

that hi s involve m en t i n his law prac tice diminished as a r esult of his disability , and Kor n points to no substitut e evide nce t hat he pr ovided to Paul Revere that would have r ender ed the tax returns a nd court a ppear ance documentation super fluous and unnec essar y . I n a dd iti on , M r. Ko c ha

no ws ki’ s f

a ilure to p ro vid e the re qu e ste d inf or ma tio n doe s n ot e xcu se Kor n’ s n e g le c t. Wh e n K or n n oti fi e d M s. F arl and

that he wa s “ re fe rr ing[he r] c or re sp on de nc e ” to his attorney , he had a lrea dy been in possession of the November 1 and De cembe r 6 letters f or seve ral

we e ks

. At his de po sit ion , Kor n ac kn ow le dg e d his und e rs tand ingthat it wa s h is o bli g a tio n to c omp ly wi th i nf or ma tio n re qu e sts , an d he ha d ac tua l kn ow le dg e that he wa s und e r s uc h a re qu e st at th e tim e he re tained Mr. Koc hanowski. Thus, t o satisfy the proof- of-loss re quirement, Kor n could have either

su bmi tte d the re qu e ste d inf

or ma tio n hims e lf

, or en sure d tha t Mr. Ko c ha no ws ki s ub mit te d it

fo r h im. He did ne ith e r. Th e Court

the re fo re c ann ot c on c lud e that K or n e xhibi te d th e re qu isi te “ re a so na ble eff ort” to satisfy t h e p ro of-of -loss require ment. Se e W ine ho lt , 1 79 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 75 2; se e als o W estfield Ins. Co. , 132 F. App’ x at 575. Although w hether

an insured substantially

c o mp li e d w it h a p r o o f

- o f

- loss r equire ment is often a question of f

act not to be de cided on summary dispositi on, see Griswol d P r o p s . , L

. L .C. v.No. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

9 L ex i n g ton Ins., Co. , 7 4 0 N

. W

. 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 7 7 ( M i c h

. C t
. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) , i nt h i s c a s e n o r e a s o n a b l e f a c tfinder c ould de termine that Korn did substantially comply with the require ment. See A nderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 252-53 (1986). We must acc ording ly aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt in favor of

Paul Revere

. B. Korn’s Motion to Amend This C o u rt revie ws the district court’ s denial of Kor n’s motion to amend for a buse of discretion. Leary v. Daeschne r , 34 9 F .3 d 88 8, 90 4 (6 th Cir

. 20 03 ). “ A dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on [to deny a motion to amend] is t o be af forde d g reat defe renc e; it ‘will be disturbed only if the district court re lied upon clea

rly err oneous finding s of fac t, imprope rly applied the g overning law, or use d

an err oneous leg al standar d.’” Id. (quoting Bl ue Cro ss & Bl ue Sh ie ld M ut. of O hio v . B lueCro ss & Blue Shield Ass’n , 110 F.3d 318, 322 ( 6th Cir. 1997)). Tw o in de pe nd e nt s tand ard s g ov e rn the c ir c ums tanc e s und e r w hic h K or n w a s p e rm itt e d to amend his complaint. F irst, the Rule 16 scheduling order , set b y t h e d i s t ri ct cour t in this case on Marc h 23, 2008, provides that “[a]ny motion to amend the complaint . .

. m u st be based on

rea sonable c ause a

nd, if based on ne wly discovere d information, be made promptly afte r re ceipt of the information upon which the proposed amendment i s based.” (Dkt. No. 44, Sche duling Or der ¶ 2.) Second, Korn’s motion to amend his complaint must also satisfy the standar d set forth in Le ar y . Although, a s require d by Rule 15(a) (2) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, g ener ally a district court must “fr eely

g ive leave to amend,” in Le ar ythis Cour t rec og nized that a differ ent standar d applies whe n a propose d amendment is so late that it would require the modification of a Rule 16 scheduling order . I n such a c ase, the movant must demonstrate “g ood cause ” for his failure to moveNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

10 to amend at a

time that would not have re quired modification of the schedulingorder

. Le ar y , 349 F .3 d at 90 5- 09 . In d e termi ni ng whe th e r t he “ g oo d c a

us e ” sta nd ard is m e t, t he dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t consider whether the amendment will pr ejudice the party opposing it. Id . at 906, 908. Thoug h the Rule 16 scheduling order

in this m atter did not spec ifically set a deadline f or filing motions t o amend th e p leading s, the schedulingorder did require that “pre trial motions requiring extensive briefing and

c on sid e ratio n” be fi led by Oc tob e r 3 0, 20 08 . ( Dk

t. N o. 44 , ¶

6. ) K or n’ s mo tio n to a me nd

his

c omp la int is a “ pr e tr ia l mo tio n[] re qu ir ing e xten siv e br ie fi ng and c on sid e ratio n, ” sin c e it so ug ht t o add an e ntirely new claim for brea ch of a sepa rate contra ct and would have undoubtedly require d a response from Paul Rever e and substantial c onsideration by the district c ourt. Be cause Korn filed this mot ion on November

13, 2008, two wee ks after the October 30, 2008, dea dline, the district court could only

enter tain this mot ion if the court modified the scheduling order . I n addition, the

sc h e d u li n g o r d e r r e qu ir e d th a t f in a l w it n e s s e s b e id e n ti f

ie d b y Se p te mb e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , an d that discovery be completed by September 30, 2008. (

Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Be cause Korn’s moti on to amend soug ht to add a substantial new claim for which Paul Revere had not conduc ted any discovery , the discovery deadlines se t by

the sche duling or der likely would have a lso require d modification. Thus, the district court wa s obligated to allow the ame ndment only if Korn satisfied both the standard se t forth in the sche duling order, r equiring Korn to move to ame nd promptly upon lear ning of the infor

mation on which the ame ndment was ba sed, and the standar d set forth in Le ar y , requiring Korn to demonstrate go o d ca use for its failure to move to ame nd at a time that would not have require d modification of the sc heduling order and re quiringthe district court to consider whe ther the

am en dment would prejudice Paul Revere . Rather than f ocusing on the standar ds g overningNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

I n g ener al, t he R SA require d that the companie s send notice to individuals whose cla ims had 4 be e n de nie d fo r sp e c if

ie d re a so ns a ft e r Janu ary 1, 20 00 , that th e y we re e nti tle d to have the ir c la ims rea ssessed. Kor

n claims that he ne ver r ece ived this notice. 11 amendments set f

orth in the schedulingorder and in Le ar

y , Korn de dicates a

signific ant portion of his brief to arg uing the merits of the c laim that he desire s to add. I n 2005, the insuranc e re g ulators of all fifty states conduc ted an investigation into questionable claims handling pr actice s of var ious insurance companies, inc luding Paul Reve re. The investigation resulted i n a re g ulatory settlement ag ree ment (“RSA”) betwee n t he re g ulators and the ta rg eted insura

nce c ompanies, in which the

c omp anie s a g re e d to he ig hte ne d c la ims a sse ssm e nt re qu ir e me nts and to r e -e va luate c e rt a in c la ims that had pre viously

been denied. Korn claims that he was a third-par ty benef iciary of the RSA, and 4 that Pa ul R e ve re br e a c he d th e ob lig a tio ns it o we d to him . T he me ri ts o f t his c la im a

re ir re le va nt t o this appeal, howe ver, if the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Korn’s request t o add t h e c l ai m t o t h e c o mp l ai n t
. T h e c o mp l ai n tan d p l e a d i n gs p ri o r t o Ko rn ’s m o t i o nt o am en d al l ege only brea ch of the Policy

itself and make no mention of a c laim for bre ach of the RSA. As for w hether

the district court a

bused its discretion in denying K orn’s re quest to amend, Korn a rg ues only

that an ame ndment to his complaint would not have prejudice d Paul Revere . The parties dispute the e x tent to w hich, had the district court per mitted the amendment on Nove mber 13, 2009, Paul Revere would have been able t o conduct discovery on the new c laim. Korn points out that, even thoug h the officia l disc overy deadlines had expired by the time he soug ht le ave to amend, the sche duling or der left room for Paul Revere to conduct additional discove ry afte r the de adlines with the consent of K orn. (Dkt. No. 44, ¶ 3.) Howeve r, beca use discovery

afte r September

30, 2008,No. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

12 was pe rmitted only

upon mutual consent, nothing preve nted Korn f rom denying Paul Reve re’ s reques t s for infor

mation pertaining to Korn’s ne w claim. Paul Rever e’s inability to free ly g ather information about Kor

n’s new c laim would have c lear ly prejudice d Paul Revere

. Even if the Court we re to a g ree that an ame ndment would not have prejudice d Paul Revere , prejudice to Paul Revere is mer ely a conside ration that informs whether Korn has satisfied the “g ood

cause ” re quirement of the Le ar ystandard. T o satisfy

the Leary sta

nd ard , K or

n mu st a lso e xpla in why he fa iled to move for the amendment at a time that would not have re quired a modification of t he sche duling or der. Le ar y , 3 4 9 F

. 3 d a t 9 0 6

- 0 8

. K o r n f a il s to d o s o . T h e RS A , the contra ct on which Kor

n’s proposed amendment is ba sed, has been publicly available since its implementation in J anuar y of 2005. In addition, K o rn wa s clea rly awa re of the RSA when he a sked Ms. Fa rland about it in her deposition on October 23, 2008. (Dkt. No. 73, at 167.) Yet Kor n did not move to add his claim for bre ach of the R SA until November 13, 2008, forty -four day s after the close of

discovery

and fo ur te e n d ay s a ft e r t

he de a dli ne fo r f

ili ngpr e -t ri a l motio ns re qu ir inge xten siv e br ie fi ng . B e c a us e Korn doe s not ex plain his delay in moving to amend, K orn ha s not satisfied the “g ood cause ”

r e qu i r e m e n ti mp o s e d

b y Le ar y . Simi larly , beca

use Korn doe s not expl ain why , afte r re ceiving actua l knowledg e of the RSA, he waited to s ee k leave to amend until after the expiration of the discovery and motion-filing de adlines, Korn ha s not satisfied the re qui re m en t imposed by the

s ch ed u l i n g order

that motions t o amend the c omplaint “be made promptly afte r re ceipt of the information upon which the pr oposed amendment is based.” ( Dkt. No. 44, ¶ 2.) Whether the district court ba sed its decision to deny Korn’s motion to amend on Kor n’s failure to satisfy

the standar d setNo. 09-1081

Korn v. Paul Reve re Life Ins. Co.

13 forth in L e ar

yo r t h e s t an d ar d

s e tf o rt h i nt h e s c h e d

u l i n g o r d e r , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i d n o ta b u s e i ts discretion. III. Conclusi on I nformation per

taining to Ko rn ’s co urt appe ara nces a nd income prior to his disability was

ne c e ssa ry fo r P a ul R e ve re to a de qu a te ly

dis c e rn the affect of Kor

n’ s d isa bil ity on his a bil ity to prac tice law. Paul Reve re r equeste d this information from Korn on sever al sepa rate occa sions, and Korn fa iled to provide it within the r equire d time frame . On these f acts, no re asonable fac t-finder

c ou ld c on c lud e tha

t K or n s ubst anti a lly

c omp lie d w iththe pr oo f- of -l os s r e qu ir e me nt t

hat w a s a condition prec edent to his rig ht to recove r bene fits under his plan. Fur ther, de nial of Korn’ s motion t o amend his complaint wa s proper under e it h e r the standard g overningamendments set forth in the s cheduling order or t he st andar d g overning amendments set forth in Le ar

y . Th e a me ndme nt wo uld have pr e jud ic e d Pau l Rev e re by

re qu ir ingit t o d e fe nd

a c la im fo r w hic h c ourt -s up e rv ise d d isc ov e ry wa s n o lo nger avai lab le , a nd Ko rn ha s n ot e xpla ine d h is d e c i s i o n t o w a i t t o f

i l e f o r l e a v e t o a m e n d

u n t i l f o u r ye ar s a f t e r t h e i mp l e m e n t a t i o no f

t h e R S A , f

o rt yfo ur da y s a ft e r t he c los e of

dis c ov e ry , and fo ur

te e n da y s a ft e r t he de a dli ne fo r f

ili ngpr e -t ri a l mo tio ns . The district cour

t d i d n o t abuse its discre tion in deny ing K orn’s motion for lea ve to amend. Acc ording ly , for the f

oreg oing r easons, we AF F IRM.