Sycks v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co.

CONTRACT LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Jake Sherman


In Sycks v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., 2022 WL 17403784 (D. Alaska 2022), the district
court held that a court may not look to the terms of a contract for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss if the parties dispute whether the certified copy of the contract has been
submitted to the court. (Id. at *5). Vernon and Lila Sycks brought suit against their insurer,
Transamerica, bringing claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith,
and fraudulent misrepresentation. (Id. at *1). The Sycks bought their life insurance policy for
$50,000 paid upfront in 1993, but in a 2021 letter Transamerica notified them the policy would
lapse if an additional $21,683.12 was not paid. (Id. at *12). Transamerica included a copy of the
policy in the 2021 letter. (Id. at *2). However, in March 2022, Transamerica filed its first motion
to dismiss the Sycks’ complaint with an attached copy of the policy that differed slightly from the
2021 copy. (Id. at *3). In their amended complaint filed after the first motion to dismiss, the Sycks
alleged the differing policies indicated Transamerica had failed to provide the court with the true
policy. (Id. at *4). The district court partially granted Transamerica’s second motion to dismiss,
only dismissing the Sycks’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim. (Id. at *10). The court first
addressed the question of whether it was permitted to look to the terms of the parties’ contract,
finding that it could not. (Id. at *5). The court reasoned that, absent evidence presented from
Transamerica to the contrary, it was compelled to accept as true the Sycks’ allegations that the
certified policy had still yet to be presented. (Id.). Because the Sycks disputed the legitimacy of
both the 2021 and 2022 copies of the policy, the court found it irrelevant that the material terms of
both copies were identical. (Id.). Accordingly, the district court held that it may not look to the
terms of a contract for the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the legitimacy of the
contract was in dispute. (Id.).

Sycks v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co.

CONTRACT LAW
United States District Court, District of Alaska (2022)

Jake Sherman


In Sycks v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., 2022 WL 17403784 (D. Alaska 2022), the district
court held that a court may not look to the terms of a contract for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss if the parties dispute whether the certified copy of the contract has been
submitted to the court. (Id. at *5). Vernon and Lila Sycks brought suit against their insurer,
Transamerica, bringing claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith,
and fraudulent misrepresentation. (Id. at *1). The Sycks bought their life insurance policy for
$50,000 paid upfront in 1993, but in a 2021 letter Transamerica notified them the policy would
lapse if an additional $21,683.12 was not paid. (Id. at *12). Transamerica included a copy of the
policy in the 2021 letter. (Id. at *2). However, in March 2022, Transamerica filed its first motion
to dismiss the Sycks’ complaint with an attached copy of the policy that differed slightly from the
2021 copy. (Id. at *3). In their amended complaint filed after the first motion to dismiss, the Sycks
alleged the differing policies indicated Transamerica had failed to provide the court with the true
policy. (Id. at *4). The district court partially granted Transamerica’s second motion to dismiss,
only dismissing the Sycks’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim. (Id. at *10). The court first
addressed the question of whether it was permitted to look to the terms of the parties’ contract,
finding that it could not. (Id. at *5). The court reasoned that, absent evidence presented from
Transamerica to the contrary, it was compelled to accept as true the Sycks’ allegations that the
certified policy had still yet to be presented. (Id.). Because the Sycks disputed the legitimacy of
both the 2021 and 2022 copies of the policy, the court found it irrelevant that the material terms of
both copies were identical. (Id.). Accordingly, the district court held that it may not look to the
terms of a contract for the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the legitimacy of the
contract was in dispute. (Id.).