As such, it expressly declined to resolve LINA's alternative removal theory premised on a federal question. Nat'l Prod. Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 05–cv–5415 2010 WL 1292429, at *6–7 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 29, 2010). LINA filed a counterclaim against the Trust for unpaid policy premiums for the months of August and September 2004, and then moved for summary judgment.
The requirements for a valid contract are "an offer, acceptance, and consideration." Nat'l Prod. Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Life Ins. Co. N. Am., No. 05-CV-5415, 2010 WL 1292429, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2010)(citing Franck v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., 445 F.Supp.2d 954, 961 (N.D. Ill. 2006)). The formation of a "binding contract also requires mutual assent—often referred to as a 'meeting of the minds'—as to the essential terms of the contract.
Since there is already a basis for federal jurisdiction, it doesn't matter whether the claims are characterized as "federal" or not, because Hewitt may remove the case either way. Bartholet, 953 F.2d at 1075 (the "right to remove cases that 'really' depend on federal law goes by the misnomer 'complete preemption.'"); Nat'l Prod. Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Life Ins. Co. N. Am, No. 05-CV-5415, 2010 WL 1292429, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2010) ("Given the existence of [diversity] jurisdiction, there is no need to decide whether the Court also has federal question jurisdiction [under ERISA].") Accordingly, I agree with the Plaintiff that the complete preemption doctrine is neither relevant nor applicable here. II. Conflict Preemption
Novogroder is correct that the insurance policy doesn't specifically state that the replacement cost value is "forfeited" after two years, but Hartford has presented unrebuted evidence that Novogroder was provided with notice of the two-year limitation period and that Novogroder, through its counsel, was aware of the time limitation. See National Production Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, No. 05-cv-5415, 2010 WL 1292429, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2010) ("Illinois law imposes a duty on an insured to review the terms of an insurance policy issued to him and to know the contents of that policy."); Golf v. Henderson, 876 N.E.2d 105, 111 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) ("An insured has an affirmative duty to review the terms of a new policy issued to him and is burdened with knowing the contents of that policy."). Novogroder hasn't come forth with evidence that would support a finding that Hartford's actions weren't "reasonable efforts to bring about the occurrence of conditions precedent within [Novogroder's] control."