S-24-0049 Daniel Leibhart and Stacy Leibhart (Appellants) v. City of Imperial, Nebraska, Cypress Benefit Administrators (LHS), LLC, Lucent Health Care Management, LLC, and Lucent Health Solutions, LLC (Appellees)
Appeal from the District Court for Chase County, Judge Patrick M. Heng
Attorneys: Joel D. Nelson (Keating, O’Gara, Nedved & Peter, PC, LLO for Appellants), David A. Dudley, Christopher M. Schmidt, Eric J. Sutton (Baylor Evnen Wolfe & Tannehill, LLP for Appellee City of Imperial, Nebraska), and
Britni A. Summers and Aaron A. Clark (McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC, LLO for Appellees Cypress Benefit Administrators (LHS), LLC, Lucent Health Care Management, LLC, and Lucent Health Solutions, LLC)
Civil: Summary judgment
Proceedings below: The district court overruled Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment, sustained the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, entered judgment in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellants make the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in sustaining the City of Imperial’s motion for summary judgment; 2) The district court erred in overruling Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment; 3) The district court erred in finding that the illegal acts exclusion in the plan barred benefits for B.L.’s treatment in the following aspects: A) The district court erred in not construing the key terms of the plan in favor of Appellants, and against Appellees; B) The district court erred in not considering Appellants reasonable expectations of coverage; C) The district court erred in finding that “incarcerated” is a term that could apply to a sixteen-year-old with no record who committed a first-time misdemeanor and whether ambiguous or clear, the term did not apply; D) The district court erred in failing to find that application of the illegal acts exclusion would be contrary to public policy; 4) The district court erred in sustaining LHS’s motion for summary judgment: A) The district court erred in finding Appellants could not, as a matter of law, prove the LHS Defendants tortiously interfered with the agreement between Appellants and the City of Imperial, to Appellants’ detriment.