Opinion ID: 202671
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expectations of Investment Earnings

Text: 44 Appellants raised, again for the first time in their reply opposition to SunAmerica's summary judgment motion, the contention that SunAmerica may have violated Mass. Regs.Code tit. 211, § 95.05, see supra note 4, when it considered its expectation as to investment earnings in calculating the COI rate changes, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56(f), requested further discovery on that factual issue. 45 SunAmerica argues that we should reject this argument because appellants did not raise the theory in their complaint, because SunAmerica's putative consideration of investment earnings would have resulted in its lowering of the COI rate (not an increase), 9 and because appellants failed to file their Rule 56(f) motion for further discovery until after they filed its initial opposition to SunAmerica's summary judgment motion. 46 We think the first ground suffices, and that further discovery (which would show, at most, whether SunAmerica did in fact consider anticipated earnings when it calculated COI rates) would not cure appellants' failure to allege this legal theory in their complaint. 10 As noted, the complaint was premised entirely on the allegation that the [COI] Rate Increases were not made in accordance with any procedures and standards on file with the Insurance Department of the jurisdiction. Mass. Regs.Code tit. 211, § 95.05, a codified regulation, was not on file with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance. Prior to filing their complaint, appellants had reviewed the policy, which expressly stated that [m]onthly cost of insurance rates will be determined by [Mutual] annually, by earnings.  If they considered that this contract provision was per se violative of Mass. Regs.Code tit. 211, § 95.05, nothing prevented them from including such an allegation in their complaint. Any belated amendment of the complaint on the cusp of summary judgment — and we note that appellants have never attempted to amend their complaint — would be unfair to SunAmerica. See Adorno v. Crowley Towing & Transp. Co., 443 F.3d 122, 126 & n. 3 (1st Cir.2006) (noting that party urging amendment of its complaint at the `eleventh hour to fend off summary judgment' must demonstrate `that the proposed amendments [are] supported by substantial and convincing evidence') (quoting RTC v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1994)). In short, SunAmerica should not be made to shoot at a continuously moving target. 47