Class Action Information
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (Act), class action settlement agreements impacting Illinois state residents are reported to the Illinois Department of Insurance (Department). Class members receive notice of proposed settlements from the immediate parties of the class action case and not through the Department. The Department does not provide legal advice or recommendations in these matters. The Department does not independently verify information submitted pursuant to the Act nor does the Department inform consumers of changes to settlements. Please do not contact the Department regarding class action settlements posted on this site. Contact information is provided.
Deborah Hillgamyer v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company, and Security Life of Denver Insurance Company:
As reported to the Department, Hillgamyer v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company and Security Life of Denver Insurance Company is a class action filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-CV-00729 (WMC) on April 24, 2012. Whereby, if Reliastar Life Insurance Company, or Security Life of Denver Insurance Company or a predecessor to one of the named defendants or by any company to which either of the above-named defendants are a successor in interest paid you a death benefit on a life insurance policy issued in Illinois for an insured who died between May 8, 2002 and August 22, 2011 and you received a payment of policy proceeds more than fifteen days after proof of loss was provided to the Defendants and received less than 9% interest, you may be entitled to share in a settlement fund of $775,000.00. The following individuals are excluded from the class: beneficiaries to the following life insurance policies: industrial, group or annuities and pure endowments, Defendant's employees, officers, Directors, and immediate family members, as well as any judge or judicial officer presiding over this case. The date of the Fairness Hearing is unknown at this time.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to notify beneficiaries to Illinois issued policies of an Illinois statutory provision entitling the beneficiary to 9% interest if the death benefits were paid more than 15 days after proof of loss was provided to defendants, failed to pay the 9% interest as required by Illinois law even though the claim was paid more than 15 days after receipt of proof of loss (death), and failed to pay the claim upon receipt of death of the insured. Additional information will be located at the following website after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement: www.RLI-SLDsettlement.com
In Re American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation:
As reported to the Department, American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation consists of two class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California Case No. CV-05-6735-CAS (MANx) on September 13, 2006 (McCormack) and January 20, 2006 (Anagnostis). The class consists of any trust or natural person owning an Active Deferred Annuity issued by American Equity, purchased between January 3, 2000 and December 31, 2009, where in the owner, or grantor in the case of a trust, was age 65 or older on the Annuity's date of issue. Class members may be entitled to Surrender Charge Reduction Benefits for surrendering their policy, a 1.75% increase in payments if their policy has already been annuitized, or other benefits. The Fairness Hearing will be held January 27, 2014.
The complaints allege that American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company and their national and regional independent marketing organizations („Defendants”) would approach senior citizens under the guise of providing low-cost estate planning and/or financial planning services in order to access the seniors' confidential financial information. This information was used to identify senior with the available assets to purchase the Defendants' deferred annuity products. The Defendants then used misleading marketing tactics to sell these annuities to the seniors, despite the fact that they would not mature until after the seniors' actuarial life expectancies. No additional contact information provided.
In re Conseco Life Ins. Co. Lifetrend Ins
As reported to the Department, In re Conseco Life Ins. Co. Lifetrend Ins. Sales and Marketing Litigation is a class action filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division Case No. 3:10-md-02124-SI (N.D. Cal) on April 23, 2009. Whereby, if you purchased or otherwise acquired a Lifetrend, CIU3+ Universal Life or Group Universal Life 2000/3000 Insurance Policy issued or serviced by Conseco Life Insurance Company (Conseco) during the period from 1987 to 1991, inclusive, (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby, you may be entitled to share in a settlement with Conseco Life Insurance Company. The Fairness Hearing is not yet scheduled.
The Complaint alleges that Conseco Life Insurance Company improperly funded "Lifetrend" insurance policies (these policies are accumulation life insurance policies that were to essentially fund themselves after large up-front premiums were paid by the policyholder, so called “vanishing premium” policies). The Complaint alleges that due to an “administrative error” Conseco underfunded the policies and, three years after discovery of the error, attempted to recoup the losses by increasing premiums on the policies. Conseco continued to send annual statements during the three year period when the company knew of the administrative error and underfunding, therefore misleading the policy holders as to the financial health of their policies. According to the Complaint, the only way that the policies could have been underfunded by the amount alleged by Conseco was for Conseco to have retroactively charged the Plaintiffs cost of insurance rates that different from the amounts Conseco indicated to Plaintiffs in their annual statements. According to the Lifetrend policies, Conseco cannot retroactively imposed increased cost of insurance rates. Therefore, the Complaint alleges that these actions constitute breach of contract and intentional torts in the form of fraud and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Ultimately, Conseco allowed the policies to be underfunded in amounts ranging from $20,000 to $350,000 per policy.
Richard Stanforth Jr., et al. v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, et al.:
As reported to the Department, Richard Stanforth Jr., et al. v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, et al. is a class action filed in the United States District Court of New Mexico Case No. 09-CV-01146 RB/RHS on December 4, 2009. Whereby, if you were an insured under any Farmers policy issued, renewed or effective in New Mexico on or after January 1, 1995, that did not provide uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance (UM/UIM) coverage equal to the liability coverage limits for property damage, you may be entitled to participation in a settlement. The Fairness Hearing will be held June 6, 2014.
The complaint alleges that Defendants* (collectively, “Farmers”), through its agents, encouraged insureds, to discontinue uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance (UM/UIM) coverage on one or more vehicles when one vehicle already carried UM/UIM coverage. The complaint alleges that Farmers agents explained to insureds that UM/UIM was portable and that each vehicle would remain covered but did not explain that the UM/UIM coverage of each vehicle would be reduced by maintaining such coverage on only one vehicle because such coverage can be “stacked.” Plaintiffs allege that Farmers had not procured a valid rejection/waiver of UM/UIM benefits consistent with New Mexico law. As a result, Plaintiffs, who were involved in motor vehicle accidents with uninsured or underinsured motorists where the injuries and damages far exceeded the amount of liability coverage held by the motorists, were denied UM/UIM benefits in an amount equal to the total liability coverage on the insured vehicles. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that Farmers wrongfully denied claims for UM/UIM benefits, which constitutes breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violating New Mexico law governing unfair trade practices and insurance.
Additional information will be located at the following website after notice of Preliminary Class Action Settlement Approval is mailed: www.Stanforth-NM-ClassActionSettlement.com
* Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Bristol West Insurance Company, 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, 21st Century Assurance Company, 21st Century Casualty Company, 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, 21st Century Insurance Company of the Southwest, 21st Century National Insurance Company, 21st Century North America Insurance Company, 21st Century Premier Insurance Company, Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, Foremost Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Foremost Signature Insurance Company, and Maryland Casualty Company