Opinion ID: 793591
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gibbs's Classification as a CFA Associate

Text: 27 We need not determine whether Gibbs falls under the definition of a CFA Associate in the 1995 SPD because CIGNA admitted in its answer that Gibbs was not a CFA Associate. Facts admitted in an answer, as in any pleading, are judicial admissions that bind the defendant throughout this litigation. See Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 523, 528 (2d Cir. 1985); see also Western World Ins. Co. v. Stack Oil, Inc., 922 F.2d 118, 121-22 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that a fact admitted by the defendant in its amended answer was thereby conclusively established against the defendant). Having agreed on a set of facts, the parties [who adopted the stipulation], and this Court, must be bound by them; we are not free to pick and choose at will. PPX Enters., Inc. v. Audiofidelity, Inc., 746 F.2d 120, 123 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Stanley Works v. FTC, 469 F.2d 498, 506 (2d Cir. 1972) (alteration in original)). 28 The District Court, therefore, erred by disregarding this admission and relying on contrary evidence to determine whether Gibbs was a CFA Associate. CIGNA's argument that its admission was limited to the fact that Gibbs did not work for CIGNA Financial Advisors is belied by the definition of the term CFA Associates in paragraph 20 of the complaint as those employees whose benefits are determined under the CIGNA Financial Advisors Associates and Staff People method for calculating eligible earnings. Therefore, it has been conclusively established that Gibbs is not a CFA Associate under the policy, and the District Court erred by concluding to the contrary. 10 29