Woodmen of the World
- 09-407 - Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society v. U.S. Bank National Association
- govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ned-8_09-cv-00407/context
- nera.com/publications/archive/case-project-experience/securities-lending-dispute.html
- (p650) - Mr. TELFER. In 1929 the Modern Woodmen were actuarially insolvent — don't ask me what that is, just accept it; it is a long story so they proceeded to rerate their policies, and in doing that they made a contract with a firm known as Frank Pearson & Co. of Chicago.
- Well, Pearson was a transfer man-a man who transfers an old policy into a new one.
- Your Mr. Sullivan could tell you a lot about that.
1936 – GOV (House) – Investigation of Real Estate Bondholders’ Reorganizations – Part 19 – Adolph J. Sabath (D-IL) --- [BonkNote]
- 1997 - LC - Atchison v. Woodmen of the World Ins. Soc., 982 F.Supp. 835 (S.D.Ala.1997) - [Google-Scholar].
- Plaintiffs allege that they (and the members of the proposed class) were fraudulently induced to purchase life insurance policies from Woodmen as the result of misleading sales presentations, policy information and marketing information developed by Woodmen and used by its nationwide sales force.
- Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the defendants misrepresented:
- (1) the number of payments a policyholder would have to pay,
- (2) the policy's cash value or benefits,
- (3) that the insurance policy was actually an investment plan,
- (4) that it would be beneficial to "roll over" the cash value of an existing insurance policy to purchase a universal life policy and (5) that the premium would be lower than it actually was. Compl. pp. 6-8.
- The complaint further alleges that the defendants "embarked upon a scheme and common course of conduct through their state and area managers and a nationwide sales force to sell Policies to the public and current Woodmen insureds through false and misleading uniform sales presentation and policy illustrations." Id. p. 13.
- Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert claims under Alabama law for churning or twisting, breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent or wanton supervision or training and unjust enrichment.
- The United States Supreme Court has identified three factors in determining whether a particular practice is part of the business of insurance:
- "first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk;
- second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and
- third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry."
- Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 129, 102 S.Ct. 3002, 73 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982).
- The Court stated none of these factors is necessarily determinative of the issue. Id.
2000 - LC - Cox v Woodmen of the World, Court of Appeals of South Carolina - [Google-Scholar]