• Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Ken Smith, CLU, ChFC
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton >
      • 2019 CBAI IZALE Sponsored Golf Outing
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • Executive Benefits Overview Webinar
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2019 Client Conference
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Privacy Policy & Website Privacy Statement
    • Video Education
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Ken Smith, CLU, ChFC
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton >
      • 2019 CBAI IZALE Sponsored Golf Outing
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • Executive Benefits Overview Webinar
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2019 Client Conference
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Privacy Policy & Website Privacy Statement
    • Video Education
  • Contact
IZALE Financial Group

Blog

AALU Newswire: Federal Class Action Suits Filed on COI Change

6/21/2016

0 Comments

 
TOPIC:   Federal Class Action Suits Filed on COI Changes
 
CITES:  Feller v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 2:16-cv-01378, (U.S.D.C., C.D. CA); Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., No. 1:16-cv-00740-JMF, (U.S.D.C, S.D.N.Y.); 37 Besen Parkway, LLC v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (USA), No. 1:15-cv-09924-PGG, (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y.); Kriegman, Trustee v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No.1:16-cv-21074-KMW, (U.S.D.C., S.D. FL); Fleisher, Trustee v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company, No. 11-cv-8405 (CM)(JMF); CA Bus. & Prof Code Section 17200, et seq.; CA Wel. & Inst. Code Section 15657.5, et seq; “Phoenix settles suit for $134.8M,” The Life Settlements Report, Volume IX, No. 18 (Sep 17, 2015).

SUMMMARY:  A number of new federal class action lawsuits have been filed against insurers after they announced increases in the cost of insurance (COI) charges for various blocks of universal life business.  Recently, at least four different federal class action lawsuits have been filed claiming damages as a result of these increases. All of the filed cases cite breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty as the main claims for relief, while the case filed in California also pleads violations of California's "Unfair Competition Law" (UCL) and California's "Elder Abuse" statute.
 
It is important to note a number of issues with respect to these cases. First and foremost, these cases are only at the pleadings stage. There has not been a determination of the validity of these claims.
 
Second, these are all cases requesting class action status.
 
Finally, complaints about carriers raising policy charges are not new. Phoenix Life, for one, has been involved with suits involving policy cost increases going back to 1997. In the most recent decided case, a federal district court approved a mediated settlement that reportedly involved the creation of a $29 million fund for policyholders. The plaintiffs in that case apparently purchased the policies in STOLI transactions. Along with the cash, the settlement includes commitments by Phoenix not to raise its cost-of-insurance rates for five years and not to mount insurable-interest legal challenges against the validity of policies held by life settlement investors. Those guarantees are supposedly valued at $94.3 million under the settlement approved September 9, 2015 by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The legal fees accruing to the plaintiffs' law firm exceeded $13 million. 

Click to download the printable pdf.
RELEVANCE:   A number of life insurance companies have recently raised the COIs on various universal life policies. This development has been the subject of much discussion - both within and without the insurance community. For example, the Wall Street Journal on December 4, 2015 published an article entitled, "Surprise: Your Life Insurance Rates Are Going Up."  Given current economic conditions, there may be even more increases on additional policies.
 
In WRNewswire 13.12.18, we discussed two court decisions where the validity of the carrier’s decision to raise COI rates was challenged; the results in those cases depended upon the language of the policies regarding the breadth of the carrier’s discretion to increase COIs. Those cases were brought by individual policy owners; the new federal class action cases have much higher financial stakes. It remains to be seen how the plaintiffs’ legal arguments will play out. 
 
If these cases go to trial, a number of important issues will have to be decided. Among these are:
 
  • When can an insurer change charges in a policy? Does it depend on the language of the policy? Does it require a showing that the insurer’s mortality experience has worsened?
 
  • If the increased charges are below the maximum guarantees, is there a cause of action?
 
  • Will insurers re-write policies so that they can freely change items such as COI without inviting lawsuits?
 
  • In policies, what is meant by a "class" of policyholders? Is it all policyholders? Is it policyholders of the same age? Same sex? Same underwriting class?
 
  • In defining the word “class” what expenses can be increased on one class that only affect that class - and does not affect other owners of the same policy?
 
  • What are the money damages if a plaintiff is successful? How are they computed?
 
FACTS:   The New York Cases
 
The New York cases have been filed by the same law firm which represented the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned Phoenix Life case. While the defendants are different insurance companies, the complaints are very similar. The policies were “minimum funded.” The complaint in Brach states this as follows:
 
Flexible-premium policies are preferred by many policy owners because they allow the owners to pay the bare minimum required to keep the policy in force (that is, the policy owners can keep the policies' Policy Account Value as low as possible) while preserving capital for other investments that yield higher returns than the interest credited on the Policy Account. Policyholders can choose to keep their Policy Account Value as close to zero as possible-in other words, they can choose not to pay any more premiums than the absolute minimum to cover COI and the other administrative expenses.
 
The argument here is that minimum funded policies are particularly sensitive to COI increases and that these policies have been unfairly singled out by AXA.
 
Of critical importance in the Brach complaint is the following policy language:
 
Changes in  policy  cost  factors  (interest  rates  we  credit,  cost  of  insurance deductions and expense charges) will be on a basis that is equitable to all policyholders of a given class, and will be determined based on reasonable assumptions as to expenses, mortality, policy and contract claims, taxes, investment income, and lapse. . . . Any change in policy cost factors will be determined in accordance with procedures and standards on file, if required, with the insurance supervisory official of the jurisdiction in which the policy is delivered. [Emphasis added ].

The plaintiffs argue that it was this provision which created the breach of contract, since the COI increases were made only on policies where the insured was over age 70 and the face amount exceeded $1 million. The thrust of the argument is that this group of insureds is not a "class." Rather, they argue, all insureds of this particular policy is “the class”. The issue of what is a class may lie at the heart of any court decision.
 
In the 37 Besen Parkway case, the plaintiffs made a unique argument, stating that John Hancock agreed to review COIs every five years. They continued by asserting that Hancock breached the contract by not lowering the COIs, which they should have done since mortality is improving. The main thrust of the complaint is similar to Brach. Hancock had an age 100 mortality rider, which extended the death benefit beyond age 100. The policy provided that the cost of this rider is to be borne by insureds age 32 or younger. However, Hancock raised the COIs for all policies which had the rider. The plaintiffs here are insureds on a second-to-die policy who are now well into their 80s. Their argument is that raising the COIs on insureds older than age 32 is a breach of contract and that the class of insureds older than age 32 are being discriminated against.
 
The California Case
 
The California case is interesting in that a consumer watch-dog organization is participating in the suit. The suit alleges that the COI increases are a device to raise profitability due to persisting low interest rates. The complaint alleges that a reasonable person would believe that COIs are based solely on mortality and that mortality is getting better - not worse – so the raising of COI rates is unfair.
 
A second claim is made based on a theory of "breach of an implied good faith and fair dealing." The complaint addresses this with the following:
 
As alleged above, Transamerica has breached these duties in connection with the MD Rate Increase, frustrating the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs and the Class Members under the Policies and tortiously depriving them of benefits under the Policies. In increasing the Monthly Deduction, Transamerica did not give proper consideration to the welfare of Plaintiffs and the Class Members and served solely its own interests at their expense. In addition, Transamerica has failed to truthfully, let alone reasonably, disclose or describe its course of conduct, or the basis and reasons for its course of conduct.
 
Yet another cause of action listed in the complaint is a violation of California's unfair competition statute. The complaint outlines the unfair practice as follows:
 
Marketing and selling the Policies on the premise that they were a solid and good life insurance product that would provide a certain death benefit for a certain cost and duration and subsequently taking steps to prevent Policyholders from receiving the promised benefits from those Policies by suddenly, massively, and  unlawfully increased mortality upon which the original MD Rate schedule is based - in order  to  increase  premiums,  recoup  past  losses,  and/or  force  its insureds to surrender (cancel) their Policies, all of which was, and is, contrary to,  and  precluded  by,  the  express  terms  of  the  Policies.
 
The final allegation relates to California's elder protection law, as the plaintiffs are all older than age 65. The complaint alleges:
 
Transamerica is guilty of oppression, fraud, and  malice  in  the commission of the above-described acts of abuse. At a minimum, Transamerica knew or should have known that its conduct was likely to be harmful to elders.
 
The Florida Case
 
This case against Transamerica also alleges that the COI increases are really meant to recoup losses due to interest rates remaining very low. Specifically, the suit alleges breach of contract on three grounds, expressed, as follows:
 
Transamerica breached the policies by increasing COI to recoup past losses, which is not one of the permissible, implied, or express bases for increasing COI;…
 
b. Transamerica breached the policies by increasing COI on bases that do not apply equitably to the class of insureds; and
 
c. Transamerica breached the policies because Transamerica's COI increase was not based on the permissible factors stated in the policies, which are tied to expectations of future experience and not recoupment of past losses;
 
In addition, like the California case, the plaintiffs allege a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The arguments to support this claim are as follows:
 
Transamerica breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, among other things:
 
a. Undermining Plaintiff's right to pay premiums as needed to cover the monthly deductions;
 
b.  Exercising its discretion to increase the COI to recoup past losses;
 
c. Misrepresenting to Plaintiff and the Class members the reasons for the COI increase; and
 
d. Negating the value of what were intended to be guaranteed interest rates, which Transamerica has no right to do.

DISCLAIMER

This information is intended solely for information and education and is not intended for use as legal or tax advice. Reference herein to any specific tax or other planning strategy, process, product or service does not constitute promotion, endorsement or recommendation by AALU. Persons should consult with their own legal or tax advisors for specific legal or tax advice.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    IZALE Financial Group

    As an independent firm, we’re driven by close client relationships. For you, that means that our technical expertise is yours to rely on. 

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    January 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    August 2019
    April 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    March 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013


    Categories

    All
    1035 Tax Deferred Exchange
    2018
    401K
    457f Plans
    AALU
    A. M. Ratings
    Articles
    Asset Man
    Asset Management
    Asset Protection
    BalancedComp
    Bank
    Banking
    Bank Owned Life Insurance
    Bankruptcy
    Banks
    Basel III
    Bear Market
    Beneficiary
    Benefit Plans
    Benefits
    Board Of Directors
    BOL
    BOLI
    Brian Smedley
    Bruce Barge
    Buisness Owned Life Insurance
    Business Owned Life Insurance
    Butterfly Effect
    Capital Conservation Buffer
    Capital Management
    Capital Requirements
    Cap Rates
    CBAI
    CDC
    CDI
    Center For Disease Control
    CEO
    CFO
    Chris
    Chris Richardson
    Clawback
    COI
    Cole Frago
    COLI
    Common Equity
    Commuity Bank Of Trenton
    Community Banking
    Community Banks
    Compensation
    Compliance
    Connecticut Court
    Consumer Protection Act
    Consumer Protection Act Of 2010
    Coronavirus
    Corporate Owned Life Insurance
    Corporate Taxation
    CPA
    Credit Rates
    Credit Union
    Credit Union Magazine
    Credit Union National Association
    Credit Unions
    CUES
    CUNA
    Daniel Kahneman
    DBO
    DCUC
    DCUC Alert Magazine
    Death Benefits
    Defense Credit Union Council
    Divorce
    Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform
    Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
    Econocheck
    Economic Forecast
    Employee Benefits
    ERISA
    Estate Planning
    Estate Tax
    Estate Trust
    Executive Benefits
    Executive Compensation
    Executive Retirement Plans
    Family Legacy
    FDIC
    Federal Reserve Bank
    Fee-based Checking
    Fee Checking
    Fee Income Strategies
    FICA
    Finance Industry
    Financial Education
    Financial Executives
    Financial Forecast
    Financial Managers Society
    Financial Planning
    Finanical Reporting
    Fintect
    Fiscal Year 2015
    Fixed Income
    FL
    FMS
    Fmstv
    FRS
    GAMA
    Gary Wilberg
    Gerald H. Sherman
    Gift Tax
    Global Markets
    Greenberg Traurig
    Greene V. Commissioner
    Guggenheim Partners
    House Ways And Means
    IDProtect
    Incentive Based Compensation
    Incentive-based Compensation
    Income Tax
    Indexed BOLI
    Indexed Universal Life
    Inherit
    Inheritance
    In-Laws
    Insurance
    Insurance Premium
    Insurance Tax Liability
    Interest Rates
    Investment Portfolio
    Investments
    IRA
    IRC
    Irrevocable Trust
    IRS
    IUL
    IZALE
    IZALE Financial Group
    IZALE Testimonial
    JB Barnes
    Jim Patterson
    Jobs Act 2017
    Joe Tripalin
    Jonathan Barnes
    Jonathan M. Forster
    Ken Kies
    Key Person Life Policy
    Las Vegas
    Leadership
    Legacy Planning
    Life Insurance
    Life Policy
    Liquidity Risks
    LLP
    Long Term Disability
    Martin Kalb
    Matt Bush
    May Disability Month
    Media
    National Credit Union Administration
    NCUA
    Non-interest Income
    Non-profit
    Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
    Nonqualified Plans
    NQDC
    Obama Administration
    Orlando
    Pay Ratio Rule
    Phil
    Phil Aderton
    Philip Aderton
    Ponzi Market
    Premarital Planning
    President Obama
    President's Budget
    Press
    Press Releases
    Profit Sharing
    PRS
    Rebecca Manicone
    Recession
    Regulationry Issues
    Regulatory Capital Calculation
    Regulatory Environments
    Resources
    Retirement
    Retirement Plan
    Revenue Strategies
    Richard A. Sirus
    Risk Management
    Roth
    R. Scott Richardson
    SBLI Term Life Insurance
    Scott MInard
    Scott Minerd
    Scott Richardson
    SEC
    Secure Checking
    SERP
    Sherman & Patterson
    Small Business Resale
    Social Security Tax
    Split Dollar Loans
    Split Dollar Plans
    Steve Brown
    Steve Fichtenbaum
    Steven B. Lapidus
    Stock Exchange
    Stock Market
    Stuart Lewis
    Tax Benefit
    Tax Code
    Tax Court
    Tax Cuts
    Tax Cuts And Jobs Act Of 2017
    Tax Deductions
    Tax Deferred Assets
    Tax Implications
    Tax Incentives
    Tax Law
    Tax Liabilities
    Tax Planning
    Tax Refor
    Tax Reform
    Taylor Advisors
    TCJA 2017
    The Forum
    Todd Taylor
    Top Hat Plans
    Treasury Bonds
    Trust
    Trustee
    Trusts
    US Supreme Court
    Washington Report
    Webinars
    Webinar W.O.W.S.
    Whole Life Insurance
    World Economic Forum
    World Economy
    WRMarketplace
    WRNewswire

Client Log-In

Log in to Pangburn
Log in to RBOLI.com

Contact

 855-492-5334 | Contact
Join Our Mailing List
© 2011 - 2019 IZALE Financial Group. All rights reserved. Login.
​Effective June 9, 2017, all individuals who provide advice to retirement plans, including Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), must abide by the fiduciary standard.  What does the fiduciary standard mean?  This means that your advisor must put your interests first before their own or that of the firm, make prudent recommendations, charge reasonable compensation and make no misrepresentations to you regarding recommended investments.  The recommendations made by your advisor must be based upon your specific investment needs and objectives.  The fiduciary standard is applicable to any recommendations that your advisor makes to you, the client, for your retirement account.
IZALE Website Privacy Policy
Please note the firm does have policies and procedures in place to monitor this level of fiduciary responsibility for our clients.
IZALE Financial Group does insurance business in California as IZALE LLC Insurance Agency
This site is published for residents of the United States only. Representatives may only conduct business with residents of the states and jurisdictions in which they are properly registered. Therefore, a response to a request for information may be delayed until appropriate registration is obtained or exemption from registration is determined. Not all of services referenced on this site are available in every state and through every advisor listed. For additional information, please contact Scott Richardson at 855-492-5334 .