United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2622 JULIE GREENBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. No. 3:18-cv-00239 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MARCH 29, 2022 — DECIDED AUGUST 30, 2022 ____________________

Before FLAUM, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge. This case concerns an in- surance dispute over a champion show horse named Thomas. Thomas is alive and well, but Thomas’s owner, Julie Green- bank, sued her insurance carrier, Great American Assurance Company, for failing to provide mortality coverage for Thomas. Greenbank alleges that Great American breached the insurance policy and acted in bad faith by unreasonably 2 No. 21-2622 withholding consent for Thomas’s authorized humane de- struction, opting instead to perform a tenotomy that de- stroyed Thomas’s use as an athletic show horse. She also al- leges that Great American’s continued care and control over Thomas, long after the policy terminated, constitutes conver- sion and theft. The district court dismissed her claims at sum- mary judgment, and Greenbank appeals. We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in Great American’s favor and affirm. I A. The Insurance Policy In September 2017, Greenbank purchased an American Saddlebred gelding horse named Awesome at This (barn name “Thomas”) for $500,000. Greenbank intended to use Thomas as an athletic show horse for competitive purposes. Shortly after this purchase, Greenbank obtained a mortal- ity insurance policy with Great American for Thomas’s full purchase price. The policy, effective September 28, 2017, through September 28, 2018, provided coverage in the event of Thomas’s “death” or “authorized humane destruction.” The policy defines “[a]uthorized humane destruction” as the intentional destruction of a “horse” under the following cir- cumstances: (1) Where we [Great American], without any condition, qualification, or reservation, have expressly agreed to the destruction of the “horse”; or (2) Where a “horse” sustains an injury and a “qualified veterinarian” appointed by [Greenbank] certifies to [Great American] No. 21-2622 3

that the suffering of the “horse” is incurable and so excessive that immediate destruction is imperative for humane reasons; or (3) Where a “horse” sustains an injury or is af- flicted with an excessively painful illness or disease and a “qualified veterinarian” ap- pointed by [Great American] certifies to [Great American] that the suffering of the “horse” is incurable and so excessive that immediate destruction is imperative for hu- mane reasons. Under the policy, a horse’s death or authorized humane destruction must result, in part, from an illness, injury, or spe- cific surgery. To obtain coverage in the event of Thomas’s death or au- thorized humane destruction, the policy requires Greenbank to meet certain conditions precedent. One condition prece- dent requires Greenbank to immediately notify Great Ameri- can if Thomas becomes ill. The policy notes that failure to pro- vide immediate notice of Thomas’s illness “will invalidate any claim under the policy.” If Thomas becomes ill, the policy allows Great American to