NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 22-3344

_____________

SAMUEL SPALTER,

Appellant

v.

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 2-21-cv-08843)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 17, 2023

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, MATEY and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: February 16, 2024)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

MATEY, Circuit Judge.

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Samuel Spalter bought life insurance from Protective Life Insurance (“PLI”) and 

fell behind on his premium payments in 2016. Despite a notice to pay up or lose his 

policy, he sent PLI less than what he owed. PLI cancelled the policy, and Spalter sued.

But Spalter’s payment was too little, his suit too late, and the District Court granted PLI 

summary judgment. Finding no error, we will affirm.

I.

In 2007, PLI issued a $3 million life insurance policy to Spalter. Like most life 

insurance, Spalter’s Policy required regular premium payments to remain active. The 

Policy included a 61-day grace period maintaining coverage if Spalter failed to make a 

required payment. Under that provision, Spalter would remain insured, and receive a 

warning that, without sufficient payment by the end of the grace period, the Policy would 

terminate without value. Spalter’s Policy also included a “Lapse Protection 

Endorsement,” App. 3, an add-on that established a separate Lapse Protection Account

(“LPA”) “for the sole purpose of determining whether lapse protection applies to the 

Certificate.” App. 52. If the LPA value “equals or exceeds” what is owed annually on the 

life insurance policy, the Policy will not lapse. App. 52.

Spalter failed to make his premium payments, triggering a series of 52 grace 

periods. The Lapse Protection began shifting between active and inactive status based on 

Spalter’s insufficient premium payments. Beginning in 2012, and every year after that, 

Spalter’s annual Policy report, issued by PLI, contained a notice that Lapse Protection 

was no longer in effect for the Policy because it was insufficiently funded. In February 
3

2016, Spalter received what would be his final grace notice. The notice warned Spalter 

that if he failed to act by March 12, 2016, to fund his Policy, “all coverage” would end. 

App. 3. The notice did not state how much Spalter had to pay; instead, he was given a 

customer service number to call. And the notice reminded Spalter that, should his Policy 

lapse, he could still apply to reinstate his Policy within five years of the end of the grace 

period.

Spalter called PLI customer service, and a representative advised him that

$16,034.14 was due by March 12, 2016. On March 10, 2016, PLI received a payment of 

only $15,425.00 from Spalter. On March 21, 2016, PLI notified Spalter the Policy lapsed 

for insufficient funds. Spalter did not apply for reinstatement within the specified fiveyear window. Instead, Spalter sued PLI in New Jersey state court, alleging PLI 

unlawfully terminated his Policy and seeking a declaratory judgment that his “Policy is in 

full force and effect.” App. 4, 18–21. PLI removed to federal court and, following 

discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted 

PLI’s motion and denied Spalter’s.1

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review of the 

decisions of the District Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). See Ellis v. 

Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC, 11 F.4th 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2021). We “may affirm on any 

ground supported by the record.” Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 140 (3d Cir. 

2023).
4

II.

Spalter first argues that PLI failed to perform its obligations under the Policy 

because its notices were deficient as a matter of law.

2 PLI was required, according to 

Spalter, to “request the correct amount” from Spalter in the notices he received. Opening 

Br. 8. Since the ones Spalter received never specified an amount due, Spalter says the 

notices were invalid. We agree with the District Court’s contrary conclusion. An 

insurance policy is interpreted according to the “plain and ordinary meaning.” Voorhees 

v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 607 A.2d 1255, 1260 (N.J. 1992).3 The Policy states that 

during a grace period, “[PLI] will notify you in writing that a premium grace period has 

2 Spalter argues that he is not alleging breach of contract, as he only seeks a 

declaratory judgment that the Policy is still in effect. Not so. His suit is based on the 

terms and alleged breach of the Policy as a contract. See, e.g., App. 20–21 (asserting in 

the Complaint that PLI “did not comply with” various provisions of the Policy, that 

Spalter fulfilled his duties and obligations, and that PLI’s actions violated the Policy).

3 A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction looks at the forum state’s choiceof-law rules. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941). Spalter 

filed his suit in New Jersey state court. Under New Jersey law, where parties lack a 

contractual choice-of-law clause, as here, we first “determine whether an actual conflict 

exists” by assessing the “substance of the potentially applicable laws.” P.V. ex rel. T.V. v.

Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d 453, 460 (N.J. 2008); Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l (USA) Corp., 

709 F.3d 202, 206 (3d Cir. 2013). Life insurance contracts are governed “by the local law

of the state where the insured was domiciled at the time the policy was applied for.”

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 192 (Am. L. Inst. 1971); see also id. cmt. b 

(“[T]he insured will be held to be domiciled in the state of which he describes himself as 

a resident in his application to the insurance company.”) Here, Florida. Comparing

Florida and New Jersey law, we see no conflict. Compare Voorhees, 607 A.2d at 1260

(“[A]n insurance policy should be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary 

meaning.”), with Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla. 

2003) (“[I]nsurance contracts must be construed in accordance with the plain language of 

the policy.”). So “the forum state applies its own law to resolve the disputed issue.” Rowe

v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 917 A.2d 767, 771 (N.J. 2007).
5

begun. If we do not receive sufficient premium to keep the Certificate in force before the 

end of the premium grace period, the Certificate will terminate without value as of that 

date.” App. 48. A contractual obligation that PLI satisfied in its notice dated February 8, 

2016. PLI had no obligation, contractually or otherwise,4to state in each notice how 

much Spalter owed. Because PLI did all it had to do, Spalter’s argument about the 

notices’ content fails.

Next, Spalter argues that PLI’s quoted premium payment of $16,034.14 was too 

high and the $15,425.00 he paid PLI was the true amount he owed. A curious claim since 

he never disputed the amount due upon receiving previous grace notices, or challenged 

the quote when it was provided (or any time thereafter). But it is barred by the New 

Jersey six-year statute of limitations beginning “after the cause of any such action shall 

have accrued.” N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-1(a); see also Crest-Foam Corp. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 727 

A.2d 1030, 1034 (N.J. App. Div. 1999). New Jersey starts the limitations clock when “the 

injured party knows, or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have discovered 

the injury.” Sodora v. Sodora, 768 A.2d 840, 842 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2000). Spalter 

learned of the alleged miscalculations in 2009, the first time he received a grace notice.

And in each of the 50 grace notices after that. All warned that his Lapse Protection 

Account was underfunded, and the early notice places his claim well beyond the six-year 

statute of limitations.

4 There is no New Jersey law governing lapse notices, which Spalter admits.
6

* * * *

The District Court did not err in granting PLI’s motion for summary judgment,

and we will affirm.