State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Riley
No reporter information provided (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), a responsive pleading must answer every allegation by admitting it, denying it, or stating that the party lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth. Answering that an allegation is a "legal conclusion" or that a document "specks for itself" are improper and evasive responses.
Facts:
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company initiated an interpleader action.
- Nancy DeMarco was named as one of the defendants in this action.
- DeMarco's legal counsel prepared and submitted a responsive pleading to State Farm's complaint.
- This pleading responded to numerous allegations not by admitting, denying, or claiming lack of sufficient knowledge, but by asserting that the allegations stated 'legal conclusions' or that a referenced document 'speaks for itself'.
Procedural Posture:
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a complaint for interpleader in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a trial court.
- Nancy DeMarco, named as a defendant, filed her Answer to the Complaint.
- The District Court reviewed DeMarco's Answer on its own initiative (sua sponte) before any further proceedings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), must a defendant's answer respond to every allegation in a complaint by either admitting it, denying it, or stating a lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, thereby precluding responses such as 'the allegation is a legal conclusion' or 'the document speaks for itself'?
Opinions:
Majority - Shadur, Senior District Judge
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), a defendant's answer must directly respond to every allegation by either admitting it, denying it, or stating a lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth. Rule 8(b) provides only three permissible responses to an allegation in a complaint. A defendant cannot refuse to answer an allegation by labeling it a 'legal conclusion,' as legal conclusions are an integral and permissible part of the federal notice pleading system. Likewise, responding that a document 'speaks for itself' is an unacceptable evasion of the pleader's duty to admit or deny the complaint's characterization of that document. To properly state a lack of knowledge, a pleader must use the specific phrasing required by the rule, which sets a higher hurdle for earning a deemed denial.
Analysis:
This opinion, primarily through its appendix, serves as a significant practical guide for federal civil procedure, particularly within the Seventh Circuit. While it does not establish new legal doctrine, it crystallizes and emphatically enforces existing pleading standards under FRCP 8(b). The case is widely cited as a clear prohibition against common but improper pleading tactics, such as the 'legal conclusion' and 'speaks for itself' responses. Its broader impact is to promote judicial efficiency and discipline in pleading by providing judges with a citable authority to correct sloppy lawyering, thereby influencing litigation practice far beyond the specific case.
Unlock the full brief for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Riley