Goshen v. MONY (Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York)

Goshen vs. MONY – Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York

• ,iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/HomePage
• 2.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/county_clerk_records.shtml
• iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=600466-1995
  • 11-29-1995 – SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT – CCOP
  • 03-28-1996 – FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CCOP
  • 04-18-1996 – ANSWER – CCOP
  • 10-24-1997 – ORDER IAS PART 10 SEQ006-MEMO DECISION – CCOP
  • 10-29-1997 – JUDGMENT MICRO #094840 BILL OF COSTS – CCOP
  • 1997 1024 – WSJ – MONY Wins Dismissal of Suit Over ‘Vanishing Premium’ Policies, by Leslie Scism – [link]
    • The company, popularly known as MONY, won a dismissal this week of a national class-action lawsuit that is similar to more than 30 suits pending against major life insurers.
    • … in the MONY case, New York state judge Beatrice Shainswit found that..
      • while thousands of consumers nationally “have been deeply aggrieved by what they perceive to be a grave injustice perpetrated upon them by the numerous insurance companies who contrived, and profited, from the “vanishing premium” concept,” this “ill-conceived product” doesn’t necessarily “equate to fraud, or any other actionable wrongdoing, which can be compensated for in a court of law.”
      • Her 29-page decision debunks key arguments in almost all of the suits. – <WishList>
  • 2000 – LC – Goshen v Mutual Life – Opinion – Judge Beatrice Shainswit – 600466/95-012 – 12p – <WishList>
  • 2003 0416 – Goshen v Mony – Decision – 6p

• https://govt.westlaw.com/nyofficial/Search/Results?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&t_querytext=goshen&Page=3&SearchId=i0ad720f10000018d13ee200e6ca688b0&query=advanced%3A%20TI%28goshen%29&Template=CaseCourts
  • 47. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • 98 N.Y.2d 314, 774 N.E.2d 1190, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 2002 WL 1418408, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 05518, N.Y., July 02, 2002 (NO. 92)
  • 48. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • 97 N.Y.2d 609, 765 N.E.2d 301, 739 N.Y.S.2d 98 (Table), 2002 WL 80902, N.Y., January 15, 2002 (NO. 1-10, 1295)
  • 49. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • 286 A.D.2d 229, 730 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2001 WL 893949, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 06647, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., August 09, 2001 (NO. 3486, 3487)
  • 52. Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
    • 94 N.Y.2d 330, 725 N.E.2d 598, 704 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1999 WL 1215132, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10743, N.Y., December 20, 1999 (NO. 174, 173)
  • 53. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • 93 N.Y.2d 809, 716 N.E.2d 696, 694 N.Y.S.2d 631 (Table), 1999 WL 710359, N.Y., June 08, 1999
  • 55. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
    • 259 A.D.2d 360, 684 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1999 WL 145191, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 02343, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., March 18, 1999 (NO. 550)
  • 57. Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co.
    • 246 A.D.2d 954, 671 N.Y.S.2d 573 (Table), 1998 WL 244356, N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., January 08, 1998 (NO. M-8210X)

• 1997 1024 – WSJ – MONY Wins Dismissal of Suit Over ‘Vanishing Premium’ Policies, by Leslie Scism – [link]
  • The company, popularly known as MONY, won a dismissal this week of a national class-action lawsuit that is similar to more than 30 suits pending against major life insurers.
  • … in the MONY case, New York state judge Beatrice Shainswit found that..
    • while thousands of consumers nationally “have been deeply aggrieved by what they perceive to be a grave injustice perpetrated upon them by the numerous insurance companies who contrived, and profited, from the “vanishing premium” concept,” this “ill-conceived product” doesn’t necessarily “equate to fraud, or any other actionable wrongdoing, which can be compensated for in a court of law.”
    • Her 29-page decision debunks key arguments in almost all of the suits. – <WishList = “29-page decision”>
      • She said insurance agents don’t have a fiduciary relationship with their clients, as plaintiffs’ lawyers contend.
      • She also maintained that sales documents stating that dividends aren’t guaranteed at high levels were sufficient warning to consumers that they couldn’t rely on other promotional literature showing rosy dividend scenarios.
  • [ACLI] – “This case, being typical of many other baseless class actions, will be cited as authority in other jurisdictions for dismissing those frivolous cases,” predicted Phillip Stano, senior counsel for the American Council of Life Insurance, a trade group in Washington. “And we congratulate MONY for standing up to those who sought to intimidate them into a frivolous settlement.”

• iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/
• https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/search/wicket/page?4
• iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch?param=I
• iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/CaseSearch
• iapps.courts.state.ny.us/search/
• nycourts.gov/reporter/
• nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_03043.htm
• govt.westlaw.com/nyofficial/Search/Results?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&t_jn=Beatrice%20Shainswit&t_op=ALL&Page=1&SearchId=i0ad720f10000018d13ebf6a06ca68868&query=advanced%3A%20JU%28Beatrice%20Shainswit%29%20DIS%28Beatrice%20Shainswit%20%2F5%20dissent%21%29%20CON%28Beatrice%20Shainswit%20%2F5%20concur%21%29&Template=Judge&bhcp=1
• 1997 WL 710669 (N.Y. Sup)
• Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, No. 95-600466 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. June 7, 1996) (certifying class in case involving both vanishing premium and churning allegations).
  • https://casetext.com/case/in-re-the-prudential-ins-co-of-america
• 1999 – LC – Goshen. Mutual Life Insurance of New York
  • 2000 – LC – Goshen v Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Judge: Beatrice Shainswit, J
• 2002 – LC – Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York – Court of Appeals of the State of New York
  • Date published: Jul 2, 2002
  • 98 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 2002), 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190

• 2000 – Book – Confounded expectations : the law’s struggle with personal responsibility, by Jarecke, George W., 1953-
  • archive.org/details/confoundedexpect0000jare/page/119/mode/1up
  • Chapter – Conclusion: Vanishing Remedies – LC – Goshen v. Mony – p116-119