MONY – Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York

MONY - Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York

MONY - Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York F/K/A Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
Walter Bell
- 1983-2003, vice president of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, aka Mutual of New York, aka MONY
- 2003-2008 - Alabama Insurance Commissioner
  - 2007 - NAIC - President
Jesse M. Schwartz - Actuary

Ken Levine, chief investment officer for Mutual of New York, lived through a liquidity crisis in the early 1990s after the failures of Executive Life and Mutual Benefit.
- He will discuss an actual case history, his own company.

1995 - SOA - Liquidity: The Hidden Risk Factor, Society of Actuaries - 20p

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.
- "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."
1999 1221 - WSJ - Lawsuits Over Life Insurance Sales To Proceed to the Next Legal Stage, By Deborah Lohse - [link]

William J. McLean v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York
- 1:1996cv10411 Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigati 09/23/1996 - Pacer -
1996 - LC - McLean, et al v. Mutual Life Insurance 1:1996cv10411 Massachusetts District Court 02/28/1996 04/07/2009 - Pacer

Legal Cases
MDL-1143, DeFilippo, Goshen, McLean, Snipes
MDL-1143 - LC - IN RE: Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York - MONY Premium Litigation --- [BonkNote]
2004 - LC - McLean v. Mutual Life Insurance, In re MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK PREMIUM LITIGATION
- 299 F. Supp. 2d 4, Jan. 27, 2004 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. CIV.A.96-10411-EFH, 299 F. Supp. 2d 4
2004 - LC - DeFilippo, et al v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, Date published: Dec 16, 2004, 13 A.D.3d 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004), 787 N.Y.S.2d 11

LC - CALVIN CHATLOS, M.D., and ALVIN H. CLEMENT, vs THE MONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE MONY GROUP INC., and NEIL D. LEVIN, Superintendent, New York State Insurance Department
- re: Company Conversion, Mutual to Stock

2004 - MONY - Prospectus - Flexible Premium Variable Universal Life Insurance Policy, Issued by MONY Life Insurance Company - [link-SEC]
- (i) Since late 1995 a number of purported class actions have been commenced in various state and federal courts against MONY Life and MLOA alleging that they engaged in deceptive sales practices in connection with the sale of whole and universal life insurance policies from the early 1980s through the mid 1990s.
- Although the claims asserted in each case are not identical, they seek substantially the same relief under essentially the same theories of recovery (i.e., breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and training, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violation of state insurance and/or deceptive business practice laws).
- Plaintiffs in these cases seek primarily equitable relief (e.g., reformation, specific performance, mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting MONY Life and MLOA from canceling policies for failure to make required premium payments, imposition of a constructive trust and creation of a claims resolution facility to adjudicate any individual issues remaining after resolution of all class-wide issues) as opposed to compensatory damages, although they also seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts.
- MONY Life and MLOA have answered the complaints in each action (except for one being voluntarily held in abeyance).
- MONY Life and MLOA have denied any wrongdoing and have asserted numerous affirmative defenses. F-101
- On June 7, 1996, the New York State Supreme Court certified one of those cases, Goshen v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and MONY Life Insurance Company of America (now known as DeFilippo, et al v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and MONY Life Insurance Company of America), the first of the class actions filed, as a nationwide class consisting of all persons or entities who have, or at the time of the policy’s termination had, an ownership interest in a whole or universal life insurance policy issued by MONY Life and MLOA and sold on an alleged “vanishing premium” basis during the period January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1995.
  - On March 27, 1997, MONY Life and MLOA filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint.
    - All of the other putative class actions have been consolidated and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  - While most of the cases before the District Court have been held in abeyance pending the outcome in Goshen, in June 2003, the Court granted plaintiffs in two of the constituent cases (the McLean and Snipes cases) leave to amend their complaints to delete all class action claims and allegations other than (in the case of McLean) those predicated on alleged violations of the Massachusetts and Illinois consumer protection statutes.
  - On November 19, 2003, the Court in McLean entered an order granting defendants dispositive motion seeking dismissal of the individual claims of the proposed class representatives of the putative statewide class comprised of Massachusetts purchasers, but denying that motion as to the individual claims of the proposed class representatives of the putative state-wide class of Illinois purchasers only.
  - The order is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- On October 21, 1997, the New York State Supreme Court granted MONY Life’s and MLOA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims filed in the Goshen case against MONY Life and MLOA.
  - On December 20, 1999, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all but one of the claims in the Goshen case (a claim under New York’s General Business Law), which has been remanded back to the New York State Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
  - The New York State Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed that, for purposes of the remaining New York General Business Law claim, the class is now limited to New York purchasers only.
  - On July 2, 2002, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the New York State Supreme Court’s decision limiting the class to New York purchasers.
  - In addition, the New York State Supreme Court has further held that the New York General Business Law claims of all class members whose claims accrued prior to November 29, 1992 are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
  - On September 25, 2002 in light of the New York Court of Appeals’ decision, MONY Life and MLOA filed a motion to decertify the class with respect to the sole remaining claim in the case.
  - By orders dated April 16, and May 6, 2003, the New York State Supreme Court denied preliminarily the motion for decertification, but held the issue of decertification in obeyance pending appeals by plaintiffs in related cases and a hearing on whether the present class, or a modified class, can satisfy the requirements of the class action statute in New York.
  - MONY Life and MLOA have appealed from the denial of their motion for decertification, which appeal is presently pending in the Appellate Division, First Department.
  - MONY Life and MLOA intend to defend themselves vigorously the sole remaining claim.
  - There can be no assurance, however, that the present litigation relating to sales practices will not have a material adverse effect on them.