## Facts

- Leonard Kevin Bias, a University of Maryland basketball star, entered a representation agreement with Advantage International, Inc., naming A. Lee Fentress as the representative servicing the account.
- Bias was drafted in the first round of the NBA draft by the Boston Celtics and died two days later from cocaine intoxication.
- The Estate alleged defendants failed to obtain a $1 million life insurance policy after Bias and his parents requested it and relied on assurances that coverage existed; defendants obtained disability coverage with an accidental-death rider but no life insurance coverage before Bias’s death.
- The Estate also alleged defendants failed to secure a signed endorsement contract with Reebok before Bias’s death, allegedly due to conflicts of interest and negligent representation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Estate produced specific evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact that Bias was insurable for a $1 million life insurance policy, so that defendants’ conduct could have caused the claimed loss.
2. Whether the Estate produced specific evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact that defendants’ conduct caused the loss of a binding Reebok endorsement contract.
3. Under Rule 56, what showing the nonmoving party must make once the movant points to an absence of evidence on an element the nonmovant must prove at trial.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on both the life-insurance and Reebok-endorsement claims.
- On the life-insurance claim, defendants made a record-supported showing that Bias’s cocaine use rendered him uninsurable for the requested “jumbo” life policy; the Estate failed to counter with competent, specific evidence that such a policy would have been issued on the relevant terms.
- On the Reebok claim, the Estate failed to produce specific evidence that a binding endorsement agreement would have been executed before Bias’s death but for defendants’ actions.
- Because the Estate failed to make a sufficient showing on essential elements (including causation and damages), there was no triable issue of fact.
- In light of affirming judgment for defendants on the Estate’s claims, the court did not address issues related to defendants’ counterclaims.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The movant must identify record materials showing the absence of a genuine dispute; once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the nonmovant.
- The nonmovant may not rely on allegations or speculation and must present specific facts, supported by admissible evidence, showing a genuine issue for trial.
- When a plaintiff’s theory depends on a contingent opportunity (such as obtaining insurance or closing an endorsement contract), the plaintiff must present concrete evidence that the opportunity was realistically obtainable to prove causation and damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the Estate did not provide specific, competent evidence that Bias could have obtained the requested life insurance or that a binding Reebok contract would have been secured before his death, leaving essential elements of causation and damages unsupported under Rule 56.


Bias v. Advantage Int’l, Inc., 905 F.2d 1558 (D.C. Cir. 1990)