No. 371: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Update on the Skochin Class Action Lawsuit Against Genworth

In No. 334 (September 26, 2019), I discussed a class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) relating to premium increases on long-term care (LTC) insurance policies. Here I provide an update on the case. (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

Developments Reported in No. 334

On January 18, 2019, three individuals filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). The plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin, and Maryland resident Larry Huber. They purchased their policies in 2003 and 2004 from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth and GLIC. The original complaint included four claims for relief: Count 1 for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Count 2 for fraudulent inducement, Count 3 for fraudulent omission, and Count 4 for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL).

The lawsuit is one of many involving premium increases on LTC insurance policies. Unlike other cases, however, the plaintiffs do not challenge the increases. Rather, they allege the defendants failed to disclose material information to assist policyholders in making decisions about their policies. Thus Skochin may be thought of as a disclosure (or nondisclosure) case.

On March 12, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The judge denied the motion. On April 29, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included four claims for relief: Count 1 for breach of contract, Count 2 for fraudulent inducement, Count 3 for fraudulent omission, and Count 4 for violation of the CPL.

On May 13, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 28, the judge ordered the defendants to complete production of documents by July 19. On July 3, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal of Genworth, leaving GLIC as the only defendant.

On August 7, the judge set November 14 for a class certification hearing, and March 3, 2020 for the jury trial to begin. On August 29, the judge granted GLIC's motion to dismiss Count 1 (breach of contract) in the amended complaint, and denied GLIC's motion to dismiss the other three counts. He ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by September 20, and GLIC to file its answer by October 4. On September 20, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that included two claims for relief: Count 1 for fraudulent inducement by omission, and Count 2 for violation of the CPL.

Developments Subsequent to No. 334

On October 30, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On November 1, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint, and stayed the defendant's answer pending approval of the settlement. He also ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion to notify the class and a proposed settlement agreement. On November 22, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On December 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion to notify the class and a proposed settlement agreement.

On January 15, 2020, the judge held a hearing, granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, directed that the class notice be mailed to class members, and set the final approval hearing for July 10. On March 31, in response to requests by Genworth, the judge granted an amendment to the preliminary approval, and directed that the notice be mailed to class members. The class notice is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Proposed Settlement

According to the proposed settlement and the class notice, policyholders will be offered certain options. Some policyholders will be offered options that include cash benefits. However, I found no estimate of the aggregate cash benefits to policyholders, other than a wide range of figures in the ambiguous paragraph (b) of the following description of the compensation of the plaintiffs' attorneys:

As part of the request for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel will file a request seeking to be paid the following:
(a) $2,000,000 relating to the injunctive relief that is in the form of the Disclosures.
(b) An additional contingent payment of 15% of certain amounts related to Special Election Options selected by the Settlement Class, which shall be no less than $10,000,000 and no greater than $24,500,000. None of the attorneys' fees will be deducted from payments made by Genworth to Settlement Class members.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will also request an award of litigation expenses of not more than $75,000. With regard to the three named class representatives, the plaintiffs' attorneys will request approval of service payments of up to $25,000 for each of them for the time, work, and risk they undertook. None of the service payments will be deducted from payments made by Genworth to class members.

The Indiana Motion to Intervene

On April 10, after the settlement administrator mailed the class notices, the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDOI) moved to intervene to seek a temporary stay. Here is the first sentence of the motion:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the Indiana Department of Insurance moves to intervene for the purpose of seeking a temporary stay of the proceedings in this case due to the on-going national emergency resulting from the COVID-19 virus.

On the same day, IDOI moved for a temporary stay and filed briefs in support of both motions. On April 17, the plaintiffs opposed the IDOI motions. On April 23, IDOI responded to the opposition. The judge has not yet ruled on the matter. Court documents relating to the IDOI effort are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Seven Policyholder Objections

Seven policyholders filed objections with the court. On April 20, a Florida policyholder objected. On April 22, a Colorado policyholder objected. On April 28, a Michigan couple objected. On May 1, a New York policyholder objected. On May 1, an Idaho policyholder objected. On May 5, a California policyholder objected. On May 5, a North Carolina couple objected. Court documents relating to the seven objections are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Excerpt from Genworth 10-Q

On May 6, Genworth filed its 10-Q report for the quarter ended March 31, 2020. On page 63, the report describes the Skochin case. Here are the last two sentences of the description (the full description is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

Based on the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position. If the court does not approve the final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

General Observations

In other posts of mine about settlements of lawsuits involving premium increases on LTC insurance policies, there have sometimes been references to the size of a "settlement fund." Such a figure helps to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed compensation of the plaintiffs' attorneys. Without a "settlement fund" figure, an evaluation is difficult.

It seems strange that the plaintiffs' attorneys oppose the eminently reasonable IDOI request for a temporary stay due to the pandemic. I hope the judge will grant the IDOI motions and will order a temporary stay.

I am an Indiana resident. I am impressed by and grateful for my home state department's effort. At the same time, I an disappointed that no other state insurance regulators have sought a temporary stay—not even Genworth's home state of Virginia, where the case is being tried. Also, the Virginia commissioner chairs an LTC Insurance Task Force that was created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and that hopes to get its arms around the problems of the LTC insurance business.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 81-page PDF consisting of the class notice (9 pages), court documents relating to IDOI's effort to obtain a temporary stay (54 pages), court documents relating to seven policyholder objections (17 pages), and the 10-Q description of the Skochin case (1 page). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the May 2020 package about the Skochin lawsuit against Genworth.

===================================

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 343: Long-Term Care Insurance—A Complaint by a Policyholder Relating to a Genworth Premium Increase

On this blog I have posted several items about class action lawsuits against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) relating to premium increases on long-term care (LTC) insurance policies. The two most recent are No. 334 (9/26/19) and No. 337 (10/17/19). Here I discuss an individual consumer's complaint to a state insurance regulator relating to a Genworth premium increase, and an ironic incident that occurred more than 20 years ago.

The Genworth Notification

The consumer purchased the policy in 1996. Genworth recently notified the consumer of an 80 percent premium increase. The letter, with the emphasis in the original and over the signature of a senior company officer, reads:

Thank you for choosing Genworth for your long term care insurance needs. We value your business and are committed to providing quality service and being here when you need us the most.

This letter is to inform you that, as a result of higher than expected aggregate policyholder claims costs, the premium on your current long term care coverage will increase from ––– to ––– beginning on your next billing anniversary date, –––. Please refer to the enclosed Coverage Options page and Important information page for more details. Please note that this increase is not due to a change in your health, age, or claims history.

We appreciate the financial difficulty premium increases can cause. That is why we are offering coverage adjustment options to help you manage your premium cost while still maintaining important coverage. The enclosed pages outline these options along with your personalized information. We encourage you to discuss your options with your financial advisor or a member of our Customer Service Team by calling (877) 710-0817 before making a decision. For additional information regarding premium increases, we encourage you to visit www.genworth.com/ltcpremiums.

Once again, thank you for being a Genworth policyholder.

The Consumer Complaint

The consumer filed a complaint with the regulator in the state where the consumer resides. The complaint reads:

I have had this Long Term Care Insurance since 1996 and have diligently paid over $27,000 of premiums. Having this Long Term Care Insurance was a key component of my plan to ensure I had adequate care as I aged. Now as I am entering a time of my life when I could very well need this insurance, Genworth has increased the quarterly premium from ––– to ––– (+80%!) which I cannot afford on my very limited budget. They have offered alternative plans however all these options reduce the benefits drastically to the point where I may not have adequate long term care as planned for 23 years ago. I feel this is very unfair and unjustified.

It is clear that Genworth is no longer a reliable and trusted Long Term Care Insurer. Genworth has found a path forward which maximizes its profits but leaves me highly exposed to Long Term Care costs. I feel that they should honor their policy with an immediate payout of the maximum benefit currently contained in my policy ($314,000). This would allow me the chance to live out my life in good care and Genworth to sever its relationship with me as a good corporate citizen.

The Regulatory Reply

A rate review policy analyst in the state insurance department responded to the consumer complaint. The letter reads:

Thank you for taking the time to send in your complaint regarding your long term care policy with Genworth. After a thorough actuarial review, [we] did approve a rate increase for Genworth long term care policies. The current policies in place are not generating sufficient premium to pay future claims to policyholders. This is a common problem for a number of insurers nationwide because policyholders are keeping their policies longer than expected and are living longer than projected, thus using more benefits than the company anticipated when the policies were originally sold. Additionally, the cost of providing long-term care is increasing at a rate much higher than anticipated.

[We] do not have the authority to require the company to take the action you have requested. However, the company has provided several options to mitigate the rate increase.

I know this is not the information you were hoping to receive but I hope it's at least helpful. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you.

An Ironic Incident

My first article about LTC insurance was in the February 1988 issue of The Insurance Forum, the monthly newsletter I edited for 40 years until I shut it down in 2013 and started my blog. In the May 1997 issue I wrote about a promotional letter I had just received concerning guaranteed renewable LTC insurance offered by General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth. The letter included this sentence, with this underlining: "Your premiums will never increase because of your age or any changes in your health." I wrote the company expressing concern that the sentence, although technically correct, was deceptive. I said the promotional letter should make clear that the company has the right to increase premiums on a class basis.

The company officer who had signed the promotional letter responded. He defended the sentence by saying, among other things, that the company had never raised rates on existing policyholders and had an "internal commitment to rate stability." Nonetheless, and without telling me, the company removed the deceptive sentence from its promotional letters. I wrote about the incident in the May 1997 and February 1998 issues of the Forum. Those articles are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Genworth 2019 Annual Meeting

In the above mentioned No. 334, I discussed the annual meeting of Genworth's shareholders to be held on December 12, 2019, if the long-delayed merger agreement with China Oceanwide has not been completed by that date. On November 1, 2019, Genworth circulated proxy materials related to the 2019 annual meeting, and indicated that the merger has not yet been completed. Readers interested in the proxy materials may access them here.

General Observations

During the six years I have been blogging, I have received many emails from individuals concerning problems with LTC insurance. Some related to claims practices, and some related to premium increases. It pained me to tell them I am neither an attorney nor a consultant, and am not in a position to comment beyond what I have written. However, I did try to make sure they knew how to find my blog posts on LTC insurance, and some of the email exchanges led to further posts.

For many years I have said that the LTC exposure violates several important insurance principles, and for that reason the problem of financing the LTC exposure cannot be solved through the mechanism of private insurance. I explained the situation in an article in the July 2008 issue of the Forum. That article is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

I have also said that even the federal government cannot solve the problem of financing the LTC exposure through a voluntary system. Rather, it can be solved by the government only through a mandatory system that is part of a mandatory, single-payer system of universal health care. I discussed this matter in No. 310 (April 22, 2019) in the section entitled "General Observations."

In Chapter 18 of my 2015 book, The Insurance Forum: A Memoir, I summarized my experiences with LTC insurance. The chapter is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. The book is available for purchase at www.theinsuranceforum.com.

Available Material

I am offering an 18-page complimentary package consisting of the May 1997, February 1998, and July 2008 Forum articles (9 pages) and Chapter 18 of the Memoir (9 pages). Send an email to jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2019 package about LTC insurance.

===================================

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 334: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Important Class Action Lawsuit Against Genworth, and Other Matters

In No. 311 (May 2, 2019), I discussed developments relating to long-term care (LTC) insurance at Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth). In that post I should have discussed an important class action lawsuit against Genworth and a subsidiary, Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). The case was filed early in 2019 in the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the defendants are based. Here I discuss developments through September 20. (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

The Original Complaint in the Skochin Case

On January 18 three individuals filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth and GLIC. The plaintiffs were Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin, and Maryland resident Larry Huber. They purchased their policies in 2003 and 2004 from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth and GLIC.

The lawsuit was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne. President George H. W. Bush nominated him in November 1991. The Senate confirmed him in May 1992. He assumed senior status in May 2007.

The lawsuit is one of many involving premium increases imposed on the owners of LTC insurance policies. It is important because, unlike other cases, the plaintiffs do not challenge the premium increases. Rather, they allege that the defendants failed to disclose critical information to policyholders to assist them in making decisions about their policies. In other words, the lawsuit is a disclosure (or nondisclosure) case rather than a premium increase case. The first paragraph of the introductory section of the original complaint explains the point this way:

Plaintiffs and the Class Members each have PCS Series III Long Term Care Insurance policies provided by Genworth. Since 2012, Genworth has steadily and substantially increased the premiums on these policies. This case does not challenge Genworth's right to increase these premiums, or the need for premium increases given changes in certain of Genworth's actuarial assumptions. Nor does this case ask the Court to reconstitute any of the premium rates or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of any insurance regulator in approving the increased rates. Rather, this case seeks to remedy the harm caused to Plaintiffs and the Class from Genworth's partial disclosures of material information when communicating the premium increases, and the omission of material information necessary to make those partial disclosures adequate. Without this material information, Plaintiffs and the Class could not make informed decisions in response to the premium increases and ultimately made policy option renewal elections they never would have made had the Company adequately disclosed the staggering scope and magnitude of its internal rate increase action plans in the first place.

The original complaint included four claims for relief. Count 1 was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count 2 was for fraudulent inducement. Count 3 was for fraudulent omission. Count 4 was for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Pennsylvania CPL).

On March 12 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 24 the judge held a pretrial conference. The next day he issued a scheduling order, and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Amended Complaint in the Skochin Case

On April 29 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. It included the same introductory paragraph quoted above from the original complaint. The amended complaint included four claims for relief. Count 1 was for breach of contract. Count 2 was for fraudulent inducement. Count 3 was for fraudulent omission. Count 4 was for violation of the Pennsylvania CPL.

On May 13 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 28 the judge ordered the defendants to complete production of documents by July 19. On July 3 the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal of Genworth, leaving GLIC as the only defendant.

On July 31 Genworth filed its 10-Q report for the second quarter of 2019 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In it Genworth described the Skochin case. (The description is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.) The next description of the Skochin case will be in the 10-Q report to be filed around the end of October.

On August 7 the judge set November 14 for a class certification hearing, and March 3, 2020 as the date for the jury trial to begin. On August 29 the judge issued a memorandum opinion and an order. He granted GLIC's motion to dismiss Count 1 (breach of contract) in the amended complaint, and denied the motion to dismiss the other three counts in the amended complaint. He ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by September 20, and GLIC to file its answer by October 4. (The memorandum and the order are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

The Second Amended Complaint in the Skochin Case
On September 20 the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. It includes the same introductory paragraph quoted above from the original complaint. The second amended complaint includes two claims for relief. Count 1 is for fraudulent inducement by omission. Count 2 is for violation of the Pennsylvania CPL. The plaintiffs say in a footnote that they have omitted Count 1 (for breach of contract) that was in the amended complaint, but have not waived or abandoned that claim and reserve all rights to appeal its dismissal. In their discussion of Count 1 in the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs describe the allegedly material information Genworth withheld from the plaintiffs:

While Genworth informed policyholders that future increases were "likely" and defined the word "likely" to mean "if [Genworth's] claims experience warrants an increase," it withheld from them material information about the frequency and amount of future increases it had already planned to seek, including the fact that Genworth knew with certainty at the time those statements were made that its claims experience already warranted additional increases and that Genworth would be seeking (or had already sought) additional future rate increases.

The plaintiffs go on to say that other LTC insurance companies provide information about future rate increase requests. In that discussion the plaintiffs cited John Hancock as an example. (The second amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

The Genworth/China Oceanwide Merger Agreement
On October 21, 2016, Genworth and China Oceanwide entered into a merger agreement. Since then the parties have entered into twelve "waiver agreements," under each of which the parties extended the "end date" for completion of the agreement. The parties entered into their most recent waiver agreement on August 12, 2019, when they extended the end date to December 31, 2019. Genworth disclosed the latest waiver agreement in an 8-K (material event) report filed with the SEC. I discussed the waiver agreements in the previously mentioned post No. 311.

The Genworth 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
On September 12, 2019, Genworth announced in an 8-K report and in a press release that it will hold its annual meeting of shareholders in Richmond on December 12, 2019, if the proposed merger with China Oceanwide has not been completed. Genworth scheduled the meeting to remain in compliance with New York Stock Exchange listing standards, which require each listed issuer to hold an annual meeting of shareholders not later than one year after the end of the issuer's most recently completed fiscal year. Should the merger agreement be completed by December 12, 2019, the 2019 annual meeting will not be held.

General Observations
The Eastern District of Virginia has a reputation as the fastest federal civil trial court in the U.S., and the Skochin lawsuit is moving quickly.  As indicated at the beginning of this post, I think the case is important. I decided to report now on developments through the plaintiffs' filing of their second amended complaint on September 20. It will be interesting to see GLIC's October 4 response to the second amended complaint, what happens in the class certification process, what happens at the trial, whether there is an appeal, and whether the case is settled along the way. I plan to report further developments when I consider it appropriate to do so.

Available Material
I am offering a complimentary 92-page PDF consisting of the July 31 Genworth 10-Q description of the Skochin case (1 page), the judge's August 29 memorandum (30 pages), the judge's August 29 order (2 pages), and the plaintiffs' September 20 second amended complaint (59 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the September 2019 package relating to Genworth and LTC.

===================================

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 384: Long-Term Care Insurance—Another Update on the Skochin Lawsuit Against Genworth

Background

On January 18, 2019, Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin and Maryland resident Larry Huber filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC). The plaintiffs had purchased long-term care (LTC) insurance policies in 2003 and 2004 from General Electric Capital Assurance Company, a predecessor of Genworth and GLIC.

On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. On January 15, 2020, the judge held a hearing, granted preliminary approval of the settlement, directed that the class notice be mailed to class members, and set the final fairness hearing for July 10, 2020. I discussed the case in No. 334 (September 26, 2019), No. 371 (May 13, 2020), and No. 377 (June 15, 2020). (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

The California Department's Letter

On June 12, 2020, the California Department of Insurance (Department) sent a nine-page letter to the clerk of the court and to the settlement administrator. The letter is over the signature of Leslie Tick, Assistant Chief Counsel in the Oakland office of the Department. A footnote on the first page of her letter reads:

The Department does not assert standing in this matter, and it does not maintain that this submission is a Class-Member Objection under Federal Rule of Procedure 23(c)(5).

The first paragraph of the "Summary" begins at the bottom of the first page of the letter. Here, with a citation omitted, is that paragraph (the full letter is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

The Department is concerned that the Court and class members have not been provided sufficient information about the adequacy of the proposed relief. Plaintiffs reference $100 million in aggregate damages payments that class members are expected to receive pursuant to the Special Election Options, but do not attempt to assess the total value of the Special Election Options to class members. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not provide an assessment of the value of the benefits that class members must forfeit pursuant to any Special Election Option, and do not weigh the value of those forfeited benefits against the value of the reductions in premium, damages payments, or enhanced paid-up benefits that class members would receive. Ultimately, the Department is concerned that the proposed settlement may induce policyholders to forfeit policy benefits that are worth substantially more than the compensation they would receive and, conversely, that the settlement could provide Genworth with a windfall if reductions to future claim and reserve obligations greatly exceed damages paid.

After the next three paragraphs of the "Summary," the title of the next section of the letter reads: "Some of the Special Election Options may require class members to give up policy benefits that are worth much more than the compensation received." That section includes an "Analysis of Special Election Option 2" and an "Analysis of Special Election Option 3."

The next section of the letter is entitled "The proposed settlement does not include the information that would be needed to make an accurate actuarial assessment of the value of the Special Election Options." The final section of the letter, entitled "Conclusion," reads:

To its credit, the proposed settlement provides disclosures which will help class members to make informed decisions about their policies. It also appears to include cash payments that would be sufficient to return additional premiums paid by class members who would have been inclined to restructure their policy if fully informed of Genworth's intentions. And the Department is supportive of options that would allow long-term care policyholders to make informed decisions about their coverage and to adjust policy coverage levels. However, class members should not be asked to take reductions to their policy benefits that are disproportionate to the proposed cost-savings and settlement compensation.

The Initial Reply from Plaintiffs

On June 26, 2020, an attorney for the plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the motion for final approval of the settlement. He responded to various objections that had been submitted to the court by class members. Also, at the end of the reply, he included comments on the Department's letter. Those comments are entitled "The California Department of Insurance's Statement Does Not Undermine Approval of the Settlement." At the outset of that section of the reply, he showed the Department's summary paragraph quoted above. However, he did not show any of the "Conclusion" quoted above. His four-page initial reply to the Department's letter is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Supplemental Replies from Plaintiffs

On July 6, the judge issued a one-page order requiring the plaintiffs "to file a supplemental reply responding to each class member's objection individually by 12 P.M. July 8, 2020." The requirement to submit the supplemental reply in only two days probably was because the final fairness hearing was set for July 10. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On July 8, the same attorney for the plaintiffs filed two documents. The first is a three-page "Plaintiffs' supplemental reply in support of (1) motion for final approval of class action settlement and (2) class counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs." Attached is a five-page appendix listing all the class members' objections and comments on each of them. The eight-page document is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The second document is a 15-page "Joint Statement Regarding Sequence of Final Approval and Regulatory Oversight." It contains several references to regulators in California and other states. The full document is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The July 10 Final Fairness Hearing

On July 10, the judge held the final fairness hearing. On that date, he issued a two-page order that the hearing will resume on July 14. He said the attorneys will receive a Zoom invitation, and explained how others who may wish to attend remotely may arrange to do so. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The July 14 Final Fairness Hearing

On July 14, the judge resumed the final fairness hearing. On July 18, he issued a three-page order "finding that the application for fees is not sufficiently supported to allow the Court to make the assessment necessary to ascertain whether the requested attorneys' fees are reasonable or warranted." He issued a three-page order that continued the final fairness hearing to August 7 and directed the attorneys for the plaintiffs to file a further explanation by July 27. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On July 21, the judge issued an order continuing the final fairness hearing until 10:00 a.m. on August 7. On July 23, he issued an order continuing the hearing until 9:30 a.m. on September 11.

General Observations
I had intended to wait for the judge's final approval of the settlement and his closing of the Skochin case, and then write a final update. However, the delays in the completion of the final fairness hearing prompted me to post this additional update.

When I post the final update, I do not intend to express an opinion about the fairness of the settlement from an actuarial standpoint. I am not an actuary, and I do not feel comfortable expressing such an opinion. However, I would welcome expressions of opinion by professional actuaries. The complimentary packages offered in my four blog posts on the case provide a good starting point. If you need further documents, I have easy access to all the court documents and would be happy to provide them at your request. Should you respond to this invitation, please indicate whether you prefer your opinion to be with or without attribution, and I will honor your request.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 42-page PDF consisting of the California Department's letter to the court (9 pages), the initial reply to the Department's letter (4 pages), the judge's July 6 order (1 page), the first supplemental reply (8 pages), the second supplemental reply (15 pages), the judge's July 10 order (2 pages), and the judge's July 18 order (3 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the July 2020 package about the case of Skochin v. Genworth. 

===================================

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com