Duhaime v John Hancock

  • 1999 - LC - Richard DUHAIME v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
    • Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-OH)
    • Decided: June 28, 1999, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
    • No. 98-2139. 
    • 1:96-cv-10706
    • Pacer - Yes
  • Duhaime, et al v. John Hancock Mutual, et al   8:1995cv01556 Florida Middle District Court 09/20/1995 03/27/1996

 

Court of Appeals Docket #: 98-2139 Docketed: 10/20/1998
Termed: 06/28/1999
Nature of Suit: 3890 Other Statutory Actions
Duhaime, et al v. Metzenbaum
Appeal From: District of Massachusetts, Boston
Fee Status: filing fee paid
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0101-1 : 96-10706 Lead: 98-1901
     Trial Judge: George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 04/04/1996
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed:
     08/11/1998      09/10/1998
  • Case 1:96-cv-10706-RGS - Document 353-2  -Filed 05/15/17 Page 8 of 73
    • -13. In addition to churning existing policyholders, John Hancock also instructed and trained its agents to sell life insurance policies by concealing or de-emphasizing that the product they were selling was merely a life insurance policy. John Hancock agents were instructed and trained to market life insurance policies, among other things, as investment plans, pension plans, mortgage protection plans, education funding plans and savings plans, and to conceal the fact that these "plans" were nothing more than life insurance policies.
    • Some of the most egregious examples of these deceptive sales practices are John Hancock's Single Premium Insured Deposit (11 SPID 11} sales presentation,~ 1 77, infra; John Hancock's Simplified Individual Pension Plan ("SIPP") sales presentation,~ 1 78, infra; John Hancock's "Private Pension" Plan; the "Mortgage Accelerator" and "Mortgage Protection" Plan; and the LEAP sales system and similar sales presentations.
    • 15. These sales presentations and accompanying materials were misleading and failed to disclose that a substantial portion of the "investment" would be used to fund the mortality risk or insurance coverage of the policy.
    • 16. The presentations and materials were also misleading in that they explicitly misrepresented to purchasers that the so-called "plan" or "deposit" was, with regard to its costs,/ risks and benefits, substantially equivalent, if not superior, to certificates of deposit, savings accounts, annuities or other bona fide investment vehicles. 
    • 19. As a result of the above-described deceptive and wrongful practices developed by John Hancock and employed by its network of agents -- including the vanishing premium scheme, the churning scheme, the investment/savings scheme, the DAC tax assessment and Hancock's investment, dividend and interest crediting practices -- all Class Members sustained and will continue to sustain damages, losses and injuries.
    • 21. The sales practices.described herein were an enormous success for John Hancock. It is estimated that millions of life insurance products were sold to the unsuspecting plaintiffs and members of the Class based upon the fraudulent conduct described herein and John Hancock received hundreds of millions of dollars in premium income from the sales of these products.
    • Document 353-2 Filed 05/15/17 Page 28 of 73
    • 56. John Hancock knew, but failed to disclose, that the presentations being made by its sales force to unsuspecting existing policyholders and prospective policyholders were false and misrepresented what, in fact, the policyholders were to receive in return for their premium dollars.
    • At no time were plaintiffs and members of the Class informed of this likelihood or of John Hancock's knowledge of the undisclosed information.