No. 23-3334 ___________________________ Christopher Y. Meek, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

Defendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 23-3354 ___________________________ Christopher Y. Meek, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

Defendant - Appellee ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: September 24, 2024 Filed: January 10, 2025 ____________ Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ STRAS, Circuit Judge.

Life insurance can be expensive, but Christopher Meek alleged that Kansas City Life Insurance Company inflated the price for thousands of Kansans. Although neither side is happy with the district court’s 1 decision to award roughly one million dollars in damages, we affirm.

I.

About forty years ago, Meek bought a “universal life insurance” policy. It combined two products into one, a standard life-insurance policy with a savings account. The premiums that Meek paid each month went directly into the savings account, which Kansas City Life debited to cover monthly charges, including the “cost of insurance.” Anything left over increased the “cash value” of the account, which Meek would receive if he surrendered the policy. The higher the cost of insurance and the other expenses, the lower the cash value.

The cost of insurance expressly included four factors: a policyholder’s “sex, age[,] . . . risk class,” and “expect[ed] . . . future mortality experience.” But, according to Meek, Kansas City Life introduced a fifth one, profits and expenses, which the policy did not mention. Faced with a lower cash value, Meek filed a federal lawsuit for breach of contract and conversion. Not long after, the district court certified a class of about 6,000 Kansans with Meek as lead plaintiff.

Both sides moved for summary judgment. The initial question for the district court was whether Meek timely filed his lawsuit under Kansas’s five-year statute of

1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. -2- limitations for breach-of-contract claims. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-511(1). Viewing each monthly deduction as a separate violation, the district court concluded that the answer was yes for payments going back five years. For any older claims, Meek would have to establish that equitable estoppel prevented Kansas City Life from raising a statute-of-limitations defense.

Next came the resolution of the dueling summary-judgment motions. The conversion claim immediately fell away because Kansas law does not recognize one without an “obligation to return identical money.” Temmen v. Kent-Brown Chevrolet Co., 605 P.2d 95, 99 (Kan. 1980).

The breach-of-contract claim required more work. Closely examining the policy, the district court concluded that Meek’s “interpretation [was] reasonable and [Kansas City Life’s] interpretation, at best, demonstrate[d] . . . ambigu[ity].” Under the canon of contra preferentem, it construed any ambiguity against the drafter, which in this case was Kansas Cit