Court Opinion

ID: 9727914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:52:51.581706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.319345
License: Public Domain

*675Wright, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result because I find that Blue Cross’ defense was legal in nature. Legal actions require proof by the greater weight of the evidence, and equitable actions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. A legal defense should be proven by the greater weight of the evidence whether the action commenced by the plaintiff was legal or equitable in nature. A defendant’s claim at law should be proven by the greater weight of the evidence whether it was raised by counterclaim or an affirmative defense.
White v. Medico Life Ins. Co., 212 Neb. 901, 327 N.W.2d 606 (1982), states that interposing an equitable defense does not convert, an action otherwise at law into one in equity. I have no disagreement with this statement. I do not believe that White v. Medico Life Ins. Co. holds that the nature of the action brought by the plaintiff invariably controls the burden of proof upon the defendant. If the defendant raises an equitable defense or brings an equitable counterclaim, the defendant’s burden of proof is by the clear and convincing weight of the evidence. If the defendant raises a legal defense or counterclaim, the defendant’s burden of proof is by the greater weight of the evidence.
Stoural’s action was an action at law, and his burden of proof was by the greater weight of the evidence. Blue Cross’ rescission was legal in nature, and its burden of proof was by the greater weight of the evidence. See, Kracl v. Loseke, 236 Neb. 290, 461 N.W.2d 67 (1990); Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2 (1985).
As a corollary to White v. Medico Life Ins. Co., I would say that an action at law does not convert an equitable defense into one bearing the burden of an action at law. If Blue Cross’ defense of fraud had been equitable in nature, it would have had the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Miller-Lerman, Judge, joins in this concurrence.