Annuities - Lawsuits

  • 1980s - Baldwin-United – Lawsuits  ---  [BonkNote] 
  • Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010)
    • https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-md-01988/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-md-01988-4.pdf
      • IN RE: COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP. MORTGAGE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,
      • First, she relies
        on Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010). That case involved
        a claim under Hawaii’s Deceptive Practices Act, a counterpart to California’s UCL. There, the
        plaintiffs alleged that representations in the defendant’s sales and marketing brochures were
        misleading and deceptive in that the defendant “represents that its annuities protect its clients from the risks of the stock market and that Midland fails to include in its documentation facts necessary to
        inform prospective purchasers of the true risks, possible detriments, and unsuitability of Midland’s
        long-term annuities for seniors.” Id. at 1090. The district court denied class certification on the
        ground that individual issues of reliance would predominate over any common issues. The Ninth
        Circuit disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of Hawaii law, and instead found that reliance
        could be shown by an objective, reasonable person standard. Id. at 1093. In light of that legal error,
        the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification.
        Plaintiff likens her case to Yokoyama, specifically that portion of the case that describes the
        plaintiff’s claim as one that relies exclusively on written materials. However, there is a critical
        distinction between the facts of Yokoyama and the facts of this case: In Yokoyama, the defendant
        “obligate[d] its brokers, with respect to each sale, ... to certify that nothing was said that is inconsistent
        with Midland’s brochures and disclosure forms.” Id. at 1090. In contrast, Defendants here imposed
        no such obligation on their loan officers or the independent brokers. On the contrary, Defendants
        assert their brokers and loan officers “provided the supposedly omitted information to each borrower
        in oral communications or in other loan documents that varied from borrower to borrower.” (Opp’n
        to Mot. at 11) (citations omitted).