MetLife – Lawsuits

  • 1990s
    • 1993 – LC – Horton v. Metropolitan Life  —  [BonkNote]
    • MetLife – 50/50 Plan
      • 1996 – LC – Mohney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Forney – United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-00854
    • 1994 – NAIC – Special Committee on Metropolitan Life  —  [BonkNote]
    • 1994 0528 and 0929 – GOV (House) – Deceptive Practices in the Sale of Life Insurance, Cardiss Collins (D-IL)  —  [BonkNote] 
    • 1996 – LC – MDL-1091 – IN RE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation  —  [BonkNote]  
    • 1996 – SOA – Legal Issues Affecting Nontraditional Products, Society of Actuaries – 14p – <Bad Link>
  • 2000s
  • 2010s
  • Q: Let me finish the question. Were you living at your current residence at the time that you purchased the life insurance policy from MetLife?
    • A: I didn’t purchase a life insurance policy.
  • Q: So you are saying you purchased a what?
    • A: A retirement plan.
  • Q: A retirement plan, all right.  Now do you recognize that it was a life insurance policy?
    • A: At this time, yes. With the litigation.
  • Q: When did vou realize that?
    • A: When received a letter from the State of Florida for there was a class action lawsuit.

2005 0408 – LC – Horton, et al v. Metropolitan Life, et al, Deposition of Darrin Johns (“Johns Dep.”) (attached as Ex L), at 5:10- 6:23. case Document 382-1. 8:93-cv-01849, Filed 08/31/2006 Page 12 of 29 – Document 382-13

  • Now, the question is, how did all this happen?
    • It used to be in the state of Florida, for instance, that you might have a market conduct investigation, and some agent usually took the fall.
    • That was the classic example.
    • The company would throw him to the wolves, and the agent would get a rap on his or her record.
  • What happened? – We have to start with the Met Life case.
    • I was sitting in my office, and the insurance commissioner at that time, Tom Gallagher, called me from the chairman’s office of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
    • He asked me to do a 30-day investigation of a market conduct problem over in Tampa.

—  Thomas Tew

1996 – SOA – Legal Issues Affecting Nontraditional Products, Society of Actuaries – 14p

1990s 

  • 1993 – LC – [Charles G. Haney, Agent v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company]
    • Court Case: 93-055414 
    • 295th District Court
    • County Harris, TX
    • Judge Honorable TRACY KEE CHRISTOPHER
  • 1993 – LC – Horton v. Metropolitan Life (def. Rick Urso, Agent)  —  [BonkNote]
    •  8:93-cv-01849-SDM
    • Date filed: 11/01/1993, Date terminated: 10/25/1994, Date of last filing: 06/23/2011
    • Document 1 – Filed 11/01/93 – Complaint – 37p
  • 1994 – LC- Peter J. GRILLI, Special Master, Julio Gonzalez-Roel, et al.; Ronald Coulter; Anissa Coulter, Appellants, Sherry Horton, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Rick Urso, Defendants, W. R. Cunningham, et al., Claimants
    • Nos. 94-3328 and 94-3468 to 94-3470
    • United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
    • Kenneth W. Behrend, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants.
    • Lorna G. Schofield, Patrice S. Andrews, New York City, Ron Parry, Covington, KY, for Appellees in No. 94-3328.
    • Lorna G. Schofield, Patrice S. Andrews, New York City, for Appellees in Nos. 94-3468, 94-3469 and 94-3470.
    • Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 93-1849-Civ-T-23A), Steven D. Merryday, Judge. 
  • 1996 – LC – Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Charles G. Haney
    • 14-96-01096-CV – Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    • Date Filed: 09/06/1996
    • search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=14-96-01096-CV&coa=coa14
      • 08/11/2014 – Case file was destroyed per retention schedule
    • ACLI – AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LIFE INS. – Appellant – Jane Webre, Steve McConnico, Phillip E. Stano
    • 2000 – LR – Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act, by A. Michael Ferrill and Leslie Sara Hyman – 35p
      • In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Haney,8 a life insurance agent brought DTPA claims against MetLife complaining of inaccurate policy illustrations generated by computer software that MetLife sold to its agents.
  • 1996 – LC – In Re: Metropolitan Life Derivative Litigation
  • 1996 – LC – MDL No. 1091 – IN RE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation  —  [BonkNote]
    • Case 2:96-mc-00179-DWA, 2011 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2011).
    • 1999 – LC – MDL No. 1091 – IN RE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation – Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement – 19p
    • MISC. DOCKET NO. 96-179
      • Amodeo – No. 96-0759
        • 2:96-cv-00759-DWA-KJB
        • Pacer
          • Amodeo v. Metropolitan Life, et al 4:1996cv80168, Iowa Southern District Court, 03/04/1996 04/16/1996
          • Charles V. Amodeo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., 4:1996cv80168, Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation, 03/27/1996
      • Biggs – No. 96-0038
      • Caskey – No. 95-1426
      • Garrett – No. 96-0436
      • Oddi – No.96-0051
  • 1996 – Richard Sabo
    1. 1996 – LC – Richard Sabo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
      • Court of Appeals,Third Circuit, No. 96-3663., Decided: February 23, 1998
      • 2:96-mc-00179
      • Pacer – Yes
    2. 1998 – LC – Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Richard Sabo
      • C. A. 3d Cir., US Supreme Court – No. 98-2. 
      • 1998 – UNITED STATES REPORTS – VOLUME 525 – CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 1998 – 1173p
        • Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sabo …………………… 1129
        • Motion of American Council of Life Insurance for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 137 F. 3d 185.
  • 1997 – LC – James L. Rayl v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
    • 97-CV-505-H
    • 05/27/1997 – 02/01/1999
    • (N.D. Okla)
  • 1999 – LC – CHARLES G. HANEY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY – Supreme Court – No. 99-0405

2000s

  • 2000 – LC – In re: Metlife Demutualization Litigation
    • Citations – 00 CV 2258 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2010)
    • Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York
    • Date published: Feb 12, 2010
    • This case and a related case in New York Supreme Court, Fiala v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Index No. 601181/2000, are class actions arising out of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) demutualization – its conversion from a mutual insurance company to a stock corporation
  • 2001 – LC – Solarchick v. Metropolitan Life – 01-cv-00444 —  [BonkNote]
    • Pennsylvania Western District Court
    • 03/07/2001 – 07/11/2006
    • Pacer – Yes
    • Document 155 – Filed 05/10/06 – MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT – 4p
      • 1 The Florida Report is attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s Motion in Limine. Plaintiffs list the Pennsylvania Report as Exhibit 25 in their revised exhibit list dated April 26, 2006. See Docket No. 64.
      • 2 Although Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they were sold their policies in connection with an investment plan, Defendant correctly notes that Plaintiffs admitted during their depositions that they knew they were buying life insurance. See Docket No. 68, Exs. B, C. In addition, the Florida Report does not appear to discuss any of the sales materials used in this case.
  • 2001 – LC – Tran v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
  • 2001 – LC – Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life Insurance,
    • casetext.com/case/dornberger-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-company
    • 203 F.R.D. 118, Oct. 5, 2001
    • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 
    • No. 95 Civ. 10374(LBS), 203 F.R.D. 118
    • ⇒ Europe. Life Insurance
    • In short, MetLife, a New York-based insurance company, began to sell insurance policies in Europe in 1957.
    • Plaintiff alleged that MetLife’s European solicitations from 1957 to 1994 were in violation of the insurance laws of various European nations.
  • 2003 – LC – Half v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co
    • 65 Pa. D. & C.4th 246, 254-56 (Ct. C. P. Allegheny Co. December 8, 2003). 
  • 2003 – LC – Missouri – In re: General American Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation
    • Appellate Case: 03-3517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2004 Entry ID: 1841122 – 13p
    • No. 03-3510 – Charles Kenneth Knouse
    • No. 03-3516 – Patricia S. Palashoff 
    • One Pennsylvania trial court has stated that, at least in the case of a noncommercial insured who is unsophisticated with regard to insurance policies, reasonable diligence entails a cursory examination of the cover page of the policy. See Half v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 65 Pa. D. & C.4th 246, 254-56 (Ct. C. P. Allegheny Co. December 8, 2003).
      • If this is indeed true, there is nothing on the cover pages of any of the policies at issue here that would inexorably lead to a conclusion that plaintiffs (non-commercial, unsophisticated insureds) should have known that the vanishing premium concept allegedly explained to them would not occur as represented.
      • Each cover page states only that plaintiffs had a right to examine each policy and that flexible premiums were “payable” until each insured reached a certain age. See Appellants’ Consolidated App. at 73a-74a (Palashoff), 130a-131a (Palashoff), 610a (Knouse), 647a (Knouse), 686a (Knouse), 1120a (Brown), 1153a (Brown).
      • These provisions could be read by a reasonable unsophisticated insured as being completely consistent with the agents’ alleged representations that the premiums paid by plaintiffs for a limited time, in combination with policy interest and dividends paid, would be sufficient to cover future premiums. 
  • 2003 – LC – Kenneth JORDAN, Agent v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
    • No. 03 Civ. 4110(SAS) – 280 F. Supp. 2d 104
    • United States District Court, S.D. New York
    • August 22, 2003
    • https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/280/104/2501317/
      • On October 2, 2002, MetLife filed a Form U-5 for Jordan in New York City, which accused Jordan of “misrepresentation of client policy values and policy options.” Id. The next day, the NASD began an inquiry into MetLife’s allegations and requested Jordan’s response to the allegations, and on March 14, 2003, the NASD closed the inquiry without taking any action against Jordan. See id. at 10.
  • 2005 0708 – LC – In Re: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Sales Practice Litigation
    • 04-2829 
    • Opinion – 3p
    • United States Court of Appeals – Third Circuit
    • Sabo,
      • On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – (D.C. No. 96-mc-00179) – District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
  • 2005 0408 – LC – Horton, et al v. Metropolitan Life, et al, Deposition of Darrin Johns (“Johns Dep.”) (attached as Ex L), at 5:10- 6:23. case Document 382-1. 8:93-cv-01849, Filed 08/31/2006 Page 12 of 29 – Document 382-13

2010s

  • – LC – MetLife vs. FSOC (Financial Stability Oversight Council) 
  • 2017 – LC – Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 
    • 240 F. Supp. 3d 761 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (citation omitted), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 881 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 2018), amended and superseded on reh’g, 885 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2018), and rev’d and remanded, 885 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2018), Case: 1:16-cv-03530
    • ⇒  MetLife offered long-term care insurance purchasers, including Newman, various non-standard premium payment options and riders that allowed insureds to “pay off [their] policy sooner and/or ease financial obligations down the road, when [they] might be on a fixed income.” [Doc. 22, Ex. A at 9]