U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Summaries for February 14, 2014

Herzog v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc. Docket: 13-1717 Opinion Date: February 13, 2014 Judge: Williams Areas of Law: ERISA, Insurance Law Richard worked for GPI for 25 years until his 2009 death. He had a basic life insurance policy through GPI’s health and welfare plan and paid for an optional supplemental life insurance policy through GPI for several years. His wife, Maureen, was the beneficiary of both policies. At the end of 2008, Richard’s supplemental life insurance policy was cancelled. Richard’s pay stubs reflected the change, beginning in January 2009. When Richard died a few months later, GPI’s insurer, ABC, paid benefits on the basic life insurance policy. Richard had been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in September 2008. Soon after Richard’s death, Maureen’s attorney requested information regarding Richard’s supplemental life insurance policy. The company refused the request, citing its confidentiality policy, indicating that the information would only be produced in response to a subpoena. Almost two years later, Maureen filed suit, claiming that either GPI or ABC breached the policy by terminating it without Richard’s consent, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The district court awarded the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was no material issue of fact as to whether Richard cancelled his supplemental policy. Although Maureen speculated that someone other than Richard terminated the policy, she presented no evidence to support her assertion. http://j.st/Zkqk View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Boyce Docket: 13-1087 Opinion Date: February 13, 2014 Judge: Williams Areas of Law: Criminal Law Portis called 911 because Boyce was “going crazy” and had a gun. The operator said, “He has a gun?” Portis responded, “I think so.” The operator said, “Come on,” Portis said, “Yes!” twice. To “Did you see one?” Portis replied, “Yes!” The operator cautioned about perjury. Portis responded, “I’m positive.” After describing Boyce, Portis stated that she didn’t know whether Boyce had left. Officers responded. After determining Boyce was not in the apartment, they interviewed Portis and went to their car to complete a report. They saw Boyce return and call Portis’s name. Boyce ran from the officers. Officer Cummings chased him and saw Boyce reach toward his midsection, retrieve a handgun, and toss it into a yard. After catching Boyce, officers found a handgun in the area where Boyce threw a gun and found matching bullets in Boyce’s pocket. Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and of ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1), Boyce sent a letter requesting that Portis recant her statement, providing the story he wanted her to use. They also spoke about “our story” by phone while he was in jail. Portis did not testify; the government played a recording of her 911 call. After his conviction, the district court concluded that Boyce had three prior violent felonies or serious drug offenses that mandated a minimum term of 15 years’ imprisonment under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), and sentenced him to 210 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Boyce’s civil rights had been restored. The court upheld admission of the 911 call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because they were made while under the stress of a domestic battery and related to it. http://j.st/ZkTt View Case On: Justia  Google Scholar