Murr v. Midland National Life Ins. Co., No. 13-2045 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Midland, contending that the plain language of an annuity contract dictates that the term is zero or that, at minimum, Midland's proffered term is unreasonable. Completely absent from the annuity contract was any indication about the interest rate to be applied in the event that Midland was no longer offering new certificates of the annuity. The court concluded that the district court did not err in this case where Restatement (Second) of Contracts section 204 permitted the district court to supply a term for the missing value that is reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Midland.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. Where the annuity contract in question was silent as to a computational term's value, the district court did not err in looking for a value that was reasonable under the circumstances and did not err in selecting a particular value for the term.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.