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. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT