Huu Nam Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

  • 2001 – LC – Huu Nam Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
    • Case 2:01-cv-00262-DWA
    • Document 88 – Filed 03/10/06 – 5p
  • 2005 – LC –  Huu Nam Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
    • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
    • 408 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. Ct. App., May 25, 2005).
    • Vanishing Premium, Duty to Read
  • 2005 – JIR / NAIC – Abstracts of Significant Cases Bearing on the Regulation of Insurance – 5p
  • 2005 – JIR / NAIC – Abstracts of Significant Cases Bearing on the Regulation of Insurance – 5p
    • The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a “vanishing premium” case in Huu Nam Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 408 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. Ct. App., May 25, 2005). Tran alleged that he had been misled by a MetLife agent who indicated that he would only have to pay premiums on his life insurance policy for ten years.
    • The policy did not so state, but Tran could not read English.
    • The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the court below, held that Tran had a duty to read the policy or have it read to him and that the policy language was clear and unambiguous.
    • The Court of Appeals said that no such duty existed in Pennsylvania law and also noted that the policy language was subject to interpretation, so even if Tran had read it, he might not have understood that his premiums would not “vanish.”
    • The Appeals Court ruled that genuine issues of fact existed in this case, so summary judgment for the insurer was not appropriate. This case is more appropriate for resolution by a jury than by a judge.