Martin Akerman v. the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 19, 2025*
Decided May 19, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3076
MARTIN AKERMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-0152-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
This appeal, in a case alleging breach of a life insurance policy, concerns the
denial of the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-3076 Page 2
The plaintiff, Martin Akerman, sued The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company in 2024 for breaching the terms of his life insurance policy when it allegedly
denied his claim for a disability waiver of his premium payments. Akerman asserted
that he has post-traumatic stress disorder and that it qualifies as a disability under his
policy.
Akerman moved six months later for a preliminary injunction to bar
Northwestern Mutual from terminating or changing the terms of the policy. He asserted
that he was likely to succeed on the merits because past billing statements showed that
the insurer violated his policy. He also asserted that termination of the policy would
cause him significant financial hardship that could not be remedied by money damages
alone.
The district judge denied the motion. The judge explained, first, that Akerman
had not established that he had any likelihood of success on the merits, given that his
evidence was insufficient to show that Northwestern Mutual breached any terms of the
policy, let alone that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The judge added
that Akerman’s vague assertions of financial hardship were insufficient to establish that
he had no adequate remedy at law or was likely to suffer irreparable harm without
preliminary relief.
On appeal, Akerman tries to show likelihood of success on the merits by relying
on the “better than negligible” standard articulated in Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc.
v. Girl Scouts of United States, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1096 (7th Cir. 2008). But the Supreme
Court expressly disapproved that formula in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009),
explaining that the applicant must make a “strong showing” that he is likely to succeed
on the merits. See also Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2020)
(reminding “both the district courts and [the Seventh Circuit] that the ‘better than
negligible’ standard was retired by the Supreme Court”). Regardless, Akerman
provided no evidence that he has any disability or that Northwestern Mutual has done
anything to breach his policy.
Akerman also challenges the judge’s conclusion that he could not show
irreparable harm, emphasizing that he relied on the life insurance policy for financial
“stability.” But as the judge rightly pointed out, Akerman does not explain how his
alleged financial hardship would cause harm that could not be remedied with money
damages. See D.U. v. Rhoades, 825 F.3d 331, 339 (7th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-3076 Page 3
Akerman next argues that the judge abused his discretion by failing to address
the remaining factors of the preliminary injunction inquiry—the balance of harms or the
public interest in denying the motion. But a likelihood of success and irreparable harm
are threshold factors, which, if not satisfied, doom a plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief. See Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544–45 (7th Cir. 2021).
Lastly, we note but do not address the host of other ancillary matters raised by
Akerman (i.e., his alleged lack of access to electronic docketing, perceived misconduct
by the district judge, and Northwestern Mutual’s allegedly obstructive behavior during
discovery) that are not appropriate for an interlocutory appeal. See Herx v. Diocese of Fort
Wayne-S. Bend, Inc., 772 F.3d 1085, 1088 (7th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --