• In the case of Gallant v. Prudential," decided by jury verdict in April 1994, Iran and Leslie Gallant sued Prudential Life Insurance Company based on the actions of a Prudential agent.
  • The Gallants purchased a combination life insurance-annuity policy with a $25,000 face value at a monthly premium of roughly $39.00.
    • At the time of sale, the agent told them that the value of the annuity was roughly twice what it in fact was. The agent had added together the table indicating "Projected Return" with the table indicating the lower "Guaranteed Return."
    • A jury found this action fraudulent and held the agent liable and Prudential separately liable for failing to better supervise the agent. ⁸ 
  • Fortunately, the problem was discovered before the policyholder had died or had retired to receive the annuity.
    • Thus, to the time of trial, there was no true economic loss beyond the failed expectation of the larger future return.
  • According to the transcript of the testimony, the Gallants testified that, between the time they discovered the misinformation and Prudential called them to offer a remedy (Prudential offered to return their premiums or to discuss adjusting the policy), they had suffered roughly two weeks of sleepless nights and substantial anger at having been misled.
    • That was the extent of their "mental anguish."
• [MORE]

1997 - LR - Punitive Damages Reform: The Case of Alabama, by George L. Priest - 17p

• ⇒  27. Gallant v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., Barbour County, AL, CY·93-S0 (1994) 
• ⇒  The expert estimated that the verdict reduced dividends to every Alabama policyholder (Prudential is a mutual carrier) by $323."'