ILNews

7th Circuit: Stop using specialist jargon

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court ruling in a complex reinsurance case and asked attorneys to be mindful of the language they use in these types of cases.

In Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Reinsurance Results, Inc., No. 07-1823, the federal appellate court dealt with the task of determining whether the District Court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of Indiana Lumbermens. Reinsurance Results, Inc. - which reviews an insurance company's claims against its reinsurers to ensure the insurance company receives the benefits to which its reinsurance contracts entitle it - sought a third of $2.2 million dollars it claimed it obtained for Lumbermens as a result of a review.

Judge Richard Posner broke down the opinion into simpler terms compared to complicated industry terms the attorneys had used in their briefs. Lumbermens had changed the way it paid for its reinsurance premiums to increase the amount of surplus shown on its books. An increased surplus means Lumbermens would not have to pay its reinsurers a premium on certain policies. The accounting change affected the amount of money Lumbermens could bill its reinsurers for losses covered by policies. Lumbermens entered into a contract in 2004 with Reinsurance Results, which alerted Lumbermens that its accounting policy might be improper. Lumbermens' accounting firm advised the company to revert back to its pre-2000 ways of paying premiums.

As a result of the switch back, Reinsurance Results found Lumbermens was entitled to more than $2 million from its reinsurers. Reinsurance Results claimed according to its contract with Lumbermens, it was entitled to a third of that money.

The 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court that Reinsurance Results was not entitled to a portion of the $2.2 million because the benefit Lumbermens received as a result of Reinsurance Results discovering the accounting issue was not one that Lumbermens was contractually obligated to pay Reinsurance Results for discovering. Reinsurance Results could have tried to negotiate the contract to be broader, but under its current contract, it was seeking money in which it was not entitled.

Judge Posner also dedicated a portion of the opinion to reminding attorneys that most judges are not specialists but generalists and therefore will not understand complex jargon relating to a specific industry.

"Lawyers should understand the judges' limited knowledge of specialized fields and choose their vocabulary accordingly. Every esoteric term used by the reinsurance industry has a counterpart in ordinary English, as we hope this opinion has demonstrated," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT