No: 335: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry in 2018

Beginning in 1975, in many issues of The Insurance Forum, I provided tabulations of executive compensation data in the insurance industry. The final tabulation was in the July 2013 issue, because I ended the Forum with the December 2013 issue. From time to time since then, I have posted some executive compensation data on my blog. The most recent tabulation was in No. 287 (September 24, 2018), which showed data for 2017. Here I show data for 2018.

Sources of Data

The three sources of data for my tabulations have long been the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDI). In some instances, the figure I show for an individual differs from one of my sources to another. A reason for such occurrences is differing definitions of compensation among the sources.

Chapter 24 of my 2015 book, The Insurance Forum: A Memoir, describes the history of my executive compensation tabulations. It also describes the efforts of the insurance industry and state insurance regulators to prevent access to all or some of the data. Chapter 24 is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

During the final seven years of the Forum, I showed data for individuals who received at least $1 million in the year under study. The final tabulation in the Forum, showing data for 2012, is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post. In the new tabulation in this post, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2018. Where two or more individuals in a company are shown, they are listed in descending order of compensation.

SEC Data for 2018

SEC data are filed by shareholder-owned public companies. Each figure I show is the "total" in the 2019 Summary Compensation Table (Table). The components of the "total" are "salary," "bonus," "stock awards," "option awards," "non-equity incentive plan compensation," "change in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings," and "all other compensation."

The Table for most companies is in the proxy statement filed in advance of the company's 2019 annual meeting of shareholders. For a few companies, the Table is in the 10-K annual report for 2018. For the Canadian companies—Manulife and Sun Life—the Table is in the 6-K annual reports for 2018. The documents referred to here are available to the public without charge on the SEC website at https://sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html.

SEC Data for 2018
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	$17,535,398
Frederick J Crawford	7,388,355
Eric M Kirsch	5,043,897
Alleghany Corp
Weston M Hicks	8,129,352
Joseph P Brandon	5,594,449
Allstate Corp
Thomas J Wilson	18,687,246
Steven E Shebik	7,157,835
John E. Dugenske	6,764,401
Glenn T Shapiro	5,316,299
AMBAC Financial Group
Claude LeBlanc	6,203,007
American Financial Group
Carl H Lindner III	10,209,385
S Craig Lindner	10,191,495
American International Group
Brian Duperreault	20,854,669
Peter Zaffino	12,620,459
Douglas A Dachille	9,707,396
Kevin T Hogan	9,121,469
Siddhartha Sankaran	6,598,362
Ameriprise Financial
James M Cracchiolo	25,742,524
Walter S Berman	10,072,622
William F Truscott	7,515,167
Colin Moore	6,532,179
Anthem
Gail K Boudreaux	14,184,276
Brian T Griffin	6,066,160
Peter D Haytaian	5,936,543
Gloria M McCarthy	5,436,787
John E Gallina	5,153,866
Aon
Gregory C Case	16,163,875
Christa Davies	12,318,169
Arch Capital Group
Marc Grandisson	12,884,187
Arthur J Gallagher & Co
Pat Gallagher	8,062,954
Assurant
Alan B Colberg	13,616,946
Richard S Dziadzio	5,702,380
Assured Guaranty
Dominic J Frederico	12,771,902
AXA Equitable Holdings Inc
Mark Pearson	12,138,563
Seth Bernstein	9,084,847
Jeffrey Hurd	5,875,951
Anders Malmström	5,269,624
AXIS Capital Holdings
Albert A Benchimol	7,804,796
Steve K Arora	5,923,087
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
Gregory E Abel	18,013,750
Ajit Jain	18,013,750
Brighthouse Financial Inc
Eric Steigerwalt	15,537,371
Peter Carlson	7,457,356
John Rosenthal	5,123,879
Brunswick Corp
Mark D Schwabero	8,243,580
Centene
Michael F Neidorff	26,122,414
Jeffrey A Schwaneke	9,960,954
Brandy L Burkhalter	7,573,238
Jesse N Hunter	6,164,144
Chubb
Evan G Greenberg	20,357,484
John W Keogh	7,859,298
John J Lupica	6,208,344
Paul J Krump	6,203,320
Philip V Bancroft	5,039,875
Cigna
David M Cordani	18,944,045
Timothy C Wentworth	8,875,346
Alan M Muney MD	5,862,659
Christopher J Hocevar	5,352,336
CNA Financial
Dino E Robusto	10,109,176
D Craig Mense	8,157,197
CNO Financial
Gary C Bhojwani	7,701,334
CVS Health (Acquired Aetna)
Larry J Merlo	21,939,098
Jonathan C Roberts	16,066,968
Derica W Rice	12,806,073
Thomas M Moriarty	10,983,856
Eva C Borrato	6,972,421
David M Denton	5,564,551
Everest Re
Dominic J Addesso	7,066,735
Fidelity National Financial
Raymond R Quirk	9,078,683
First American Financial
Dennis J Gilmore	8,402,957
Genworth Financial
Thomas J McInerney	9,311,944
Globe Life (Formerly Torchmark)
Gary L Coleman	7,831,616
Larry M Hutchison	7,797,408
Hartford Financial Services
Christopher Swift	13,883,615
Douglas Elliot	8,999,113
Heritage Ins Holdings Inc
Bruce Lucas	8,735,043
Humana Group
Bruce D Broussard	16,312,517
Brian A Kane	5,005,025
Kemper Corp
Joseph P Lacher Jr	6,905,879
Lincoln National
Dennis R Glass	14,422,495
Loews
James S Tisch	5,714,569
David B Edelson	5,525,784
Kenneth I Siegel	5,229,566
Magellan Health Inc
Barry M Smith	10,162,716
Manulife (U.S. Dollars)
Roy Gori	10,087,189
Warren Thomson	5,634,846
Marsh & McLennan
Daniel S Glaser	17,281,919
John Q Doyle	7,023,080
Julio A Portalatin	5,983,531
Peter C Hearn	5,071,744
MBIA Inc
William C Fallon	13,855,479
Anthony McKiernan	7,085,400
Adam T Bergonzi	6,772,350
MetLife Inc
Steven A Kandarian	17,426,745
Michel A Khalaf	10,807,500
Martin J Lippert	7,881,101
Steven J Goulart	6,726,883
MGIC Investment
Patrick Sinks	7,971,526
Molina Healthcare
Joseph M Zubretsky	15,219,770
Mr Cooper Group Inc
Jay Bray	25,119,076
Anthony L Ebers	11,254,213
National General Holdings Corp
Barry Karfunkel	5,892,270
Robert Karfunkel	5,288,240
NMI Holdings Inc
Bradley M Shuster	6,706,568
Primerica Inc
Glenn J Williams	5,145,317
Principal Financial
Daniel J Houston	12,227,017
James P McCaughan	8,168,029
Progressive
Susan Patricia Griffith	14,172,925
John P Sauerland	7,134,820
Protective Life
John D Johns	11,201,101
Richard J Bielen	6,614,845
Prudential Financial
John R Strangfeld	26,696,966
Stephen Pelletier	18,525,767
Mark B Grier	15,216,589
Charles F Lowrey	10,357,459
Robert M Falzon	8,110,321
Scott G Sleyster	5,215,867
Radian
Richard G Thornberry	9,533,691
Reinsurance of America
Anna Manning	6,700,422
RenaissanceRe Holdings
Kevin J O'Donnell	10,819,363
State Auto Financial Corp
Michael E LaRocco	6,191,934
Sun Life Canada (U.S. Dollars)
Dean A Connor	7,500,277
Jacques Goulet	6,144,072
Travelers
Alan D Schnitzer	14,648,213
William H Heyman	6,621,541
Avrohom J Kess	6,009,603
Jay S Benet	5,896,441
UnitedHealth
Andrew P Witty	21,232,550
David S Wichmann	18,107,356
Stephen J Hemsley	11,352,513
Steven H Nelson	9,763,024
John F Rex	8,587,912
Universal Ins Holdings
Sean P Downes	17,923,379
Jon W Springer	7,213,248
Unum
Richard P McKenney	9,896,861
Voya Financial
Rodney O Martin Jr	11,337,911
Christine Hurtsellers	5,649,873
W R Berkley
William R Berkley	12,325,841
W Robert Berkley Jr	11,852,862
WellCare Health Plans
Kenneth A Burdick	12,675,372
White Mountains
G Manning Rountree	6,247,593

DFS Data for 2018

DFS data are filed by life insurance companies doing business in New York State, and by health insurance companies doing business there. The data are from the 2019 "Schedule G" (Schedule), which is in the New York Supplement to the statutory annual statement. I obtained the Schedules through a request pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law. The Life Bureau of DFS sent the Schedules for life insurance companies, and the Health Bureau of DFS sent the Schedules for health insurance companies. Both bureaus provided the Schedules by email without charge. The Schedule for life insurance companies differs significantly from the Schedule for health insurance companies.

The Schedule for life insurance companies shows one figure for each individual. It is "the aggregate amount (any and all remuneration, including all wages, salaries, commissions, stock grants, gains from the exercise of stock options and other emoluments) received by the payee attributable to services performed for, or on behalf of, the reporting insurer, regardless of whether the payee is employed and paid by the insurer or a related or affiliated company." For life insurance companies that are part of a group of companies, the Schedule may not show the individual's total compensation from all companies in the group. Also, pursuant to changes made several years ago in the New York State executive compensation disclosure statute to curtail the amount of compensation data available to the public, the Schedule sometimes redacts the names but shows the amounts of compensation and the titles of certain individuals. In those instances, I show the individual's title and the amount of compensation.

The Schedule for health insurance companies shows four figures for each individual: (1) "salary paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," (2) "bonus & all other compensation deferred or paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," (3) "total amount paid by company and all other companies in holding company system," and (4) "amount paid by or amount allocated to company." I show the third of those four figures.

DFS Data for 2018
Life Insurance Companies
Aetna Life (Acquired by CVS Health)
Mark Bertolini	$331,776,150
Thomas J Sabatino	24,164,969
Margaret McCarthy	23,030,488
Steven B Kelmar	23,030,147
Gary Loveman	19,053,604
Thomas W Weidenkopf	16,707,671
Karen S Lynch	15,481,922
Harold L Paz	12,138,143
Jean LaTorre	10,018,253
EVP Integration	13,342,088
EVP Government Services	12,470,663
SVP Medicare	11,533,517
SVP & Dep Gen Cnsl Aetna	9,613,347
SVP Commercial Business	6,466,738
SVP Products & Services	6,076,843
VP JV Operations	5,732,175
SVP Service Operations	5,601,306
VP Enterprise IT Delivery	5,297,360
VP Chief Mktg Officer	5,022,928
American Progressive
Kenneth Alan Burdick	21,219,890
Andrew Lynn Asher	7,168,174
AXA Equitable Life
Mark Pearson	11,836,009
Cigna Health & Life
David Cordani	11,859,705
First Health Life & Health
Karen S Lynch	18,348,308
Richard M Jelinek	8,357,794
Shawn M Guertin	6,303,937
Globe Life of New York
Frank Martin Svoboda	6,714,362
Guardian Life of America
Deanna Mulligan	8,536,819
Liberty Life Assur of Boston
Dennis A Glass	30,578,194
Randal J Freitag	9,400,216
Wilford H Fuller	7,013,771
Ellen G Cooper	5,072,368
Massachusetts Mutual Life
Roger Crandall	16,407,926
Melvin Corbett	5,563,206
Metropolitan Life
Steven Albert Kandarian	14,417,969
New York Life
Theodore A Mathas	24,483,407
John Y Kim	11,397,963
John T Fleurant	8,066,000
Matthew M Grove	5,710,361
Anthony R Malloy	5,046,000
Northwestern Mutual Life
John E Schlifske	13,489,916
Gregory C Oberland	5,450,131
Principal Life
Daniel Joseph Houston	9,909,774
President Global Asset Mgmt	7,224,751
Karl W Nolin	5,478,188
Prudential Ins Co of America
John Robert Strangfeld Jr	6,713,831
Mark Brown Grier	5,614,191
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	6,349,193
Roger Ferguson	6,219,093
Voya Retirement Ins & Annuity
Charles Patrick Nelson	5,396,999
Health Insurance Companies
Anthem
Gail A Boudreaux	11,711,001
Joseph R Swedish	7,808,541
Peter David Haytaian	6,323,390
Gloria M McCarthy	5,505,445
John E Gallina	5,320,958
Hallmark Life
Michael Frederic Neidorff	23,476,087
Jesse Nathan Hunter	5,539,330
Humana of New York
Christopher Howal Hunter	6,762,908
Mutual of Omaha
James T Blackledge	7,699,034
Sierra Health & Life
Forrest Gregory Burke	6,024,535
UnitedHealthcare of New York
Peter Marshall Gill	24,344,532
Robert Worth Oberrender	9,822,538
William John Golden	8,311,207
WellCare Prescription Ins
Kenneth A Burdick	21,219,889
Andrew L Asher	7,168,174

NDI Data for 2018

NDI data are in a "Supplemental Compensation Exhibit" (Exhibit) filed by all insurance companies doing business in Nebraska. The Exhibit normally shows figures for ten top officials. The figure I show is the "total" for each individual. Components of the "total" are "salary," "bonus," "stock awards," "option awards," "sign-on awards," "severance payments," and "all other compensation." NDI provided the Exhibits on a CD at a cost of $80.

Where companies are members of a company group, some companies show the total amount received by each individual from all companies in the group. Some companies, however, allocate each individual's compensation to each company in the group. Thus, for some individuals, the figure I show may be smaller than the individual's total compensation, for two reasons. First, I may not have found exhibits for all companies in the group. Second, some company groups may include companies that are not licensed in Nebraska and therefore do not file Exhibits.

NDI Data for 2018
Acuity, A Mutual Ins Co
Benjamin M Salzmann	$5,174,079
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	16,660,694
Frederick J Crawford	7,640,518
Eric M Kirsch	5,081,432
Alleghany Group
Michael C Sapnar	8,748,634
Javier E Vijii	6,043,844
AMBAC Financial Group
Claude LeBlanc	6,247,765
Allstate Corp
Thomas J Wilson	17,814,076
Steven E Shebik	6,809,317
John E Dugenske	6,686,395
Glenn T Shapiro	5,269,735
Dogan Civgin	5,153,711
American Family Ins
Jack C Salzwedel	11,039,858
Jonathan Ritz	5,934,753
Fabian John Fondriest	5,409,028
American Financial Group
Carl H Lindner III	9,599,630
American International Group
Kevin Hogan	7,178,384
Jay S Wintrob	5,275,962
American Pet Ins Co
Darryl Rawlings	18,260,455
Ameriprise Financial
Steven B Staver	5,863,464
Amtrust Financial Services
Jean Bahier	5,244,502
Apollo Global Management
James Belardi	5,011,830
Assured Guaranty
Dominic Frederico	14,189,764
Atlantic Specialty Ins
Timothy M Miller	18,295,748
Automobile Club of Michigan
Joseph Richardson Jr	11,548,127
AXA Ins
Mark Pearson	12,248,123
Berkshire Hathaway
Thomas P Nemey	22,214,862
Olza Minor Nicely	15,868,178
Sidney Ferenc	6,872,248
Steven Menzies	6,835,309
William Evan Roberts	5,596,235
Timothy Kenesey	5,025,423
Brighthouse Holdings
Eric T Steigerwalt	13,927,818
Chubb
John J Lupica	5,722,600
Cigna Health
David Cordani	11,859,705
Cincinnati Financial
Steven Justus Johnston	5,304,710
CNA Ins
Dino Robusto	9,593,963
D Craig Mense	8,413,429
CVS Health (Acquired Aetna)
Karen S Lynch	18,348,308
Richard M Jelinek	8,357,794
Shawn M Guertin	6,303,937
Essent Group
Mark Casale	6,556,015
Everest Reinsurance
Dominic J Addesso	5,926,259
Factory Mutual Ins
Thomas A Lawson	6,033,927
Federated Mutual
Jeffrey E Fetters	5,598,924
Fidelity & Guaranty Life
Dennis R Vigneau	5,559,928
Fidelity National Financial
Raymond Randall Quirk	8,488,420
Roger Scott Jewkes	7,291,776
Erika Meinhardt	6,868,522
First American Title
Dennis J Gilmore	7,579,689
Genworth Financial
Thomas McInerney	9,825,404
Globe Life (Formerly Torchmark)
Frank Martin Svoboda	6,714,362
Guardian Life of America
Deanna Mulligan	9,335,810
Hartford Fire & Casualty
Douglas G Elliot	10,047,508
Christopher Swift	5,400,054
Health Care Service Corp
Paula A Steiner	15,090,980
Colleen Foley Reitan	5,561,015
Humana Group
Bruce D Broussard	26,766,992
Christopher Howal Hunter	6,762,908
Insurance Co of the West
Kevin Prior	12,543,879
Ernest Rady	6,797,168
Bernard Feldman	5,236,832
Jackson National Life
Barry Stowe	10,022,913
Paul C Myers	6,600,916
James R Sopha	6,487,262
John Hancock
Daniel Janis III	6,660,559
Liberty Mutual
David H Long	19,262,058
J Paul Condin III	13,004,010
Neeti Bhalla	7,094,502
Timothy Sweeney	6,950,550
Kevin H Kelley	6,206,424
Dennis J Langwell	6,019,610
Christopher L Peirce	5,789,412
Lincoln National
Dennis R Glass	30,578,194
Randal J Freitag	9,400,216
Wilford H Fuller	7,013,771
Ellen G Cooper	5,072,368
Main Street America
T Van Berkel	20,053,624
E Kuhl	6,578,115
Massachusetts Mutual Life
Roger Crandall	15,637,391
Michael Fanning	6,088,727
Elizabeth Chicares	5,244,457
Metropolitan Life
Steven A Kandarian	14,417,969
Mortgage Guaranty Ins
Patrick Sinks	7,879,020
Mutual of Omaha
James T Blackledge	7,486,811
Nationwide Corp
Steve Rasmussen	8,478,253
New York Life
Theodore A Mathas	24,483,407
John Y Kim	11,397,963
John T Fleurant	8,066,000
Matthew M Grove	5,710,361
Anthony R Malloy	5,046,000
Northwestern Mutual Life
John E Schlifske	13,489,916
Gregory C Oberland	5,450,131
Ohio National Life
Gary Thomas Huffman	5,008,187
OneAmerica Financial
James S Davison	5,073,760
Pacific Life
James T Morris	8,758,573
Primerica Inc
Glen J Williams	5,235,159
Principal Financial
Daniel J Houston	9,909,774
Karl W Nolin	5,478,188
Progressive Corp
Susan Patricia Griffin	7,171,857
Protective Life
John Johns	12,771,271
Deborah Long	9,915,492
Richard Bielen	9,887,161
John Sawyer	5,780,110
Prudential Ins Co of America
John R Strangfeld Jr	10,194,091
Mark Brown Grier	6,114,285
Radian Group
Richard Thornberry	7,090,529
RLI Ins
Jonathan E Michael	6,715,194
Sammons Enterprises
Esfandyar E Dinshaw	5,274,345
Security Benefit Life
Michael Patrick Kiley	6,956,207
Selective Ins
Gregory E Murphy	5,235,275
Sentry Ins Group
Peter McPartland	8,072,659
Standard Ins Co
John Gregory Ness	7,960,535
State Farm Mutual
Michael Leon Tipsord	6,646,304
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	6,349,193
Roger Ferguson	6,219,093
Travelers
Alan D Schnitzer	13,940,523
Willaim H Heyman	6,058,513
Jay S Benet	5,771,835
Avrohom J Kess	5,756,549
Madelyn Joseph Lankton	5,262,906
UnitedHealth
Stevan Dean Garcia	7,793,300
Voya Financial
Alain Maurice Karaoglan	9,002,380
Rodney Owen Martin Jr	8,133,747
Western & Southern
John Barrett	9,193,300

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 22-page PDF containing Chapter 24 of The Insurance Forum: A Memoir (12 pages) and the executive compensation tabulation in the July 2013 issue of The Insurance Forum (10 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2019 package relating to executive compensation.

The 361-page Memoir may be purchased at www.theinsuranceforum.com. If you would like it autographed, please so indicate on your order.

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

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. 333: Universal Life and Numerous Cost-of-Insurance Lawsuits Against Transamerica

Over the years Transamerica Life Insurance Company has been the defendant in numerous lawsuits stemming from substantial increases in cost-of-insurance (COI) charges in universal life (UL) policies issued by the company. I have written about a few of such cases. Here I discuss several of them, including two on which I had not written previously.

The DCD Lawsuit

On April 30, 2015, Transamerica removed to federal court from a state court in California an individual lawsuit filed by DCD Partners, LLC (DCD), Personal Involvement Center, LLC (PIC), and Reverend Dr. J. Benjamin Hardwick (JBH). DCD owns the policies at issue in this case. PIC is a Nevada LLC. JBH is the founder and trustee of PIC. I have not written previously about this case. (See DCD v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:15-cv-3238.)

The case was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. President Clinton nominated her in January 1997. The Senate confirmed her in November 1997. She assumed senior status in November 2016.

On June 19, 2015, DCD filed an amended complaint. On July 20, 2015, Transamerica filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 8, 2015, DCD filed a second amended complaint. Here are some lightly edited excerpts from the second amended complaint (the full second amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

4. Historically, inner-city African-Americans have experienced difficulties in obtaining life insurance. Therefore, JBH, pastor of the Praise of Zion Baptist Church, worked with Transamerica to develop a race-neutral life insurance program that would provide benefits to the members of the congregation to, for example, pay burial expenses. Pursuant to the program, an investor, in exchange for a portion of the benefits, would pay the premiums on the policies issued on members of the congregation who chose to take part in the program. The remainder of the benefits would be provided to the named insured's designated beneficiary and non-profit entities that provide services to youth and families while improving the quality of life in the South Los Angeles community. In March 2004 Transamerica issued 1,229 policies (Pool 1) under the program. In November 2004 Transamerica issued an additional 1,171 policies (Pool 2).

5. For nearly a decade, Transamerica collected millions of dollars in premiums on these charitable life insurance policies, and the policies provided benefits to their insureds, their families, and various non-profit entities. The payment of the life insurance benefits enabled the families of the insureds to pay for funeral and other expenses upon the deaths of their loved ones. Unfortunately, Transamerica recently more than doubled the amounts charged for the policies.

25. Each policy provides a death benefit totaling $275,000. Upon the death of an insured, Transamerica makes three payments: (1) $15,000 to the insured's beneficiary for funeral and other expenses; (2) $35,000 to PIC (which is distributed among various non-profit entities and projects); and (3) $225,000 to the investor paying the premiums.

28. The aggregate cash value of the policies at the time of the increase in rates was approximately $260,000.

48. On February 18, 2014, Transamerica delivered a notice of payment due for Pool 1 that increased the projected remittance amount by an additional 62.5 percent. In the fall of 2014, Transamerica delivered a notice of payment due for Pool 2 that increased the projected remittance amount by an additional 64.8 percent.

49. Prior to the increases in the projected remittance amounts, Plaintiffs paid approximately $1,831,589 in annual premiums for the policies. As of January 2015, projected annual premium payments were $4,318,873, representing a 135.8 percent increase in annual premiums.

The second amended complaint includes six claims for relief. They are breach of written contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, declaratory relief, and negligent misrepresentation.

On October 8, 2015, Transamerica filed a motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint. On December 23, 2015, the judge denied the motion.

On March 7, 2016, the judge set the trial to begin May 6, 2017. On January 27, 2017, Transamerica filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 25, 2017, the judge postponed the trial until August 29, 2017. On August 9, 2017, the judge granted in part and denied in part Transamerica's motion for summary judgment.

The trial was in two parts. The first part, before a jury, was on DCD's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The second part, before the judge, was on DCD's claims relating to unfair competition and declaratory relief.

The jury portion of the trial began September 5, 2017 and ended September 13 after five trial days. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. (The jury verdict form is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

The bench portion of the trial began February 6, 2018. On December 13, 2018, the judge handed down a final judgment. She said DCD is entitled to recover from Transamerica $9,761,403.89 (including prejudgment interest), postjudgment interest, and injunctive relief. She denied Transamerica's motion for a new trial, and its motion for judgment as a matter of law. She also denied the following: DCD's claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, DCD's request for declaratory relief, DCD's claim for tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, DCD's claim for negligent representation, DCD's claim for attorney fees, and the claims of the other two plaintiffs. (The final judgment is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

On January 8, 2019, Transamerica filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case number there is 19-55037. At this writing, the appellate docket is lengthy.

The Gail Thompson Lawsuit
On June 18, 2018, Gail Thompson, a California citizen in her late 60s, filed a complaint in this class action lawsuit. The case was assigned to Judge Snyder. I have not written previously about this case. (See Gail Thompson v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-5422.)

Thompson is owner and primary beneficiary of a TransSurvivor 115 UL policy issued around July 1, 2000, with a face amount of $500,000. On September 19, 2018, Transamerica filed a motion to dismiss the case. On December 26, 2018, the judge denied the motion.

On May 8, 2019, Thompson filed an amended complaint that included eight additional named plaintiffs. They are residents of Colorado, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The additional named plaintiffs own policies with a total face amount of $8.2 million. The complaint refers to "monthly deduction rates" (MDRs) rather than "cost-of-insurance" (COI) rates.

The complaint alleges that Transamerica "suddenly, unilaterally, and massively" increased MDR rates on various policies. As examples, some of the increases were 47 percent or 58 percent. Others were 39 percent followed by another 39 percent in each of the following two years "effectively ratcheting the compounded increase to 169% after the third contemplated increase." Here are the final three paragraphs of the "Nature of the Action" section of the amended complaint:

6. In its notices to Policyholders announcing the MDR Increases, Transamerica stated that the increases are "in addition to the customary increases that are associated with age," and attributed them to Transamerica's "current expectations about our future costs to provide this coverage." Transamerica's true reasons for imposing the drastic MDR Increases, however, were (a) to increase its own projected future profits at the expense of the Policyholders, thereby contravening the contractual prohibitions against recouping past losses or imposing MDR Increases for reasons other than legitimate cost factors, (b) to avoid its own contractual obligations to pay guaranteed interest under the Policies and to provide no-lapse coverage under the No-Lapse Endorsement, thereby contravening its duty to treat Policyholders in good faith, and (c) to induce policy terminations by elderly Policyholders, also in bad faith.

7. As a direct result of the MDR Increases, the largely elderly Policyholders are now suddenly facing termination of their life insurance at a time when they can no longer obtain replacement coverage.

8. As alleged below, the MDR Increases violate the express and implied terms of the Policies and were imposed on the Policyholders in bad faith and in contravention of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and a violation of California's Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive and equitable relief, and ancillary damages, to halt and reverse Transamerica's massive MDR Increases. These increases have already injured Plaintiffs and, if allowed to proceed, will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and other members of the putative classes (collectively "Class Members").

The three classes of policyholders are a National Class, California Subclass I, and California Subclass II (Senior Policyholders.) The six causes of action are: (1) Breach of Contract—All Classes, (2) Contract Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Plaintiff Thompson and California Subclass I, (3) Tortious Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Plaintiff Thompson and California Subclass I, (4) Injunctive and Restitutionary Relief Pursuant to UCL—Plaintiff Thompson and California Subclass I, (5) Declaratory Relief—All Plaintiffs and All Classes, and (6) Elder Abuse—Plaintiff Thompson and California Subclass II. (The amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

On May 20, 2019, the judge referred the case to a private mediator. On August 13 the judge extended to September 24 the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification.

The Lebbin Lawsuit
I have posted six items about this individual lawsuit. The most recent post was No. 331 (September 6, 2019). I expect to write more about the case, which relates to UL in the instance of an insured who recently reached age 102. (See Lebbin v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. (9:18-cv-80558.)

The Feller Lawsuit
I have posted three items about this class action lawsuit. The most recent was No. 302 (March 1, 2019). The case was handled by Judge Snyder. I discussed her granting of final approval to a $195 million settlement in February 2019. (See Feller v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-1378.)

The Hill Lawsuit
I discussed this state court lawsuit briefly in No. 245 (December 21, 2017). On February 2, 2018, the Alabama Supreme Court, in a split decision, denied a petition for a writ of mandamus. I am attempting to find out more about what transpired in this case. (See Hill v. Transamerica, Circuit Court, Jefferson County, State of Alabama, Case No. 2016-6000401.)

Other Lawsuits Against Transamerica
In the course of preparing this post, I encountered seven other lawsuits against Transamerica. I have not reviewed them, but I list them here for anyone who might be interested. Each is or was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and each is or was assigned to Judge Snyder. Here, as of this writing, are the names, case numbers, and dates of the first and last entries on each docket:

Brighton Trustees v. Transamerica, 2:19-cv-4210, 5/15/19-9/6/19
Hamra v. Transamerica, 2:18-cv-6262, 7/19/18-6/26/19
Lois Thompson v. Transamerica, 2:16-cv-3238, 5/16/16-7/10/17
Lyons v. Transamerica, 8:16-cv-973, 5/26/16-6/28/16
Wells Fargo Bank v. Transamerica, 2:19-cv-6478, 7/25/19-9/6/19
Wells Fargo Bank v. Transamerica, 2:19-cv-6791, 8/5/19-9/6/19
White v. Transamerica, 2:16-cv-3578, 5/23/16-6/28/16

General Observations

My purpose in preparing this post is to report on the DCD and Gail Thompson lawsuits, which I had not discussed previously. This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of the subject of COI rate increases associated with UL policies. I have written not only several blog posts but also earlier articles on the subject in The Insurance Forum, a monthly newsletter I published from January 1974 through December 2013.

I have written extensively about problems associated with UL and have offered suggestions on how to address the problems. In No. 294 (November 8, 2018), I identified "the administrative problem" as one of the most important. With regard to that problem, I made several suggestions. One was that state insurance regulators should expand the requirements imposed prior to approval of UL policies, such as the filing of sample annual reports to be issued to policyholders and agents explaining the policies. A second suggestion was that state insurance regulators should require prior approval of COI increases, just as they require prior approval of increases in the premiums for long-term care insurance policies.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 87-page PDF consisting of the second amended complaint in the DCD case (32 pages), the jury verdict form in the DCD case (2 pages), Judge Snyder's final judgment in the DCD case (4 pages), and the amended complaint in the Gail Thompson case (49 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the September 2019 package about the Transamerica UL COI litigation.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 332: Long-Term Care Insurance—An Update on the General Electric Litigation and Other Matters

In No. 329 (August 28, 2019), I discussed the whistleblower report by Harry Markopolos on accounting issues at General Electric Company (GE), with special attention to GE's accounting for its long-term care (LTC) insurance legacy problems. Here is an update on some matters I addressed there, and other related items.

The NAIC LTC Insurance Task Force Meeting

In No. 310 (April 22, 2019), I discussed the formation of a new LTC insurance task force by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The chairman of the new task force is Scott A. White, the Virginia insurance commissioner. On August 4, 2019, the new task force met during the summer national meeting of the NAIC in New York City. I obtained the minutes from the NAIC website. (The minutes are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.) At the outset of the meeting,

Commissioner White said state insurance regulators have been grappling with the issue of long-term care insurance (LTCI) for many years. Several different NAIC working groups and task forces have been focused on addressing the inconsistency among the states in rate review practices and concerns over potential reserve inadequacies within the industry... Commissioner White said it is also fair to say that as state insurance regulators have had discussions, there are strong views but a lack of consensus on how to move forward.

I have said it more bluntly. In No. 313 (May 20, 2019), for example, I said the new task force will "kick the can down the road" as its predecessors have done.

Commissioner White went on to say the new task force has held five regulator-only meetings and identified six "workstreams" to accomplish the goals of the new task force: (1) Multistate Rate Review Practices, (2) Restructuring Techniques, (3) Reduced Benefit Options and Consumer Notices, (4) Valuation of LTCI Reserves, (5) Non-Actuarial Variations, and (6) Data Call Design and Oversight. Commissioner White also said:

The Task Force is currently in the planning stages and will likely continue through the end of August. He said he anticipates some of the workstreams will become full working groups, with significant interaction in open sessions. However, some workstreams will continue to operate in a confidential setting until work products begin to develop, at which time the Task Force will conduct its business in open session. The Task Force has been charged with delivering a proposal on these and other related matters to the Executive (EX) Committee by the 2020 Fall National Meeting.

The A. M. Best Commentary on LTC Insurance

On August 28, 2019, A. M. Best, a major rating firm, issued a five-page commentary entitled "GE's Long-Term Care Exposure Magnifies Counterparty Risk for Several Insurers," and subtitled "Uncertainty about LTC reserving complicates insurers' analysis of counterparty exposure." Here is the first paragraph of the commentary:

Long-term care (LTC) insurance has been the source of many concerns and discussions in the industry for some time. Sentiment surrounding LTC results has been negative for years, driven by poor performance. The poor performance was due to inadequate pricing related to factors such as low interest rates, lapse rates, mortality, morbidity, and policyholder utilization assumptions, among others. These factors led to large losses and significant reserve increases on inforce business and drove many insurers to depart from the market.

One exhibit in Best's commentary shows information from reinsurance exhibits in the 2018 statutory statements filed in March 2019 by 20 insurance companies. The exhibit focuses on two reinsurance companies owned by GE: Employers Reassurance Corporation and Union Fidelity Life Insurance Company. Best refers to those two reinsurance companies together as the "ERAC Group."

The exhibit shows the amount of reserve credit taken by each of the 20 insurance companies for reinsurance with the ERAC Group. For each of the 20 insurance companies, the reserve credit taken for reinsurance with the ERAC Group is shown as a percentage of the ceding insurance company's capital and surplus. Of the 20 insurance companies, seven have at least $1 billion of reserve credit taken for reinsurance with the ERAC Group. Those seven companies, with the ratio (as a percentage) of reserve credit taken for reinsurance with the ERAC Group to capital and surplus shown in parentheses, are: Genworth Life of New York (1,403.8%), Genworth Life and Annuity (519.3%), Genworth Life (443.8%), Lincoln Benefit Life (410.8%), American United Life (194.8%), Allianz Life of North America (46.0%), and Massachusetts Mutual Life (14.4%).

Shareholder Litigation Against GE

In No. 257 (March 12, 2018) and No. 298 (December 10, 2018), I wrote about shareholder litigation that began in November 2017 against GE and several of its current and former top officers. The plaintiffs are large shareholders who allegedly suffered losses because of major charges taken by GE in connection with its operations, including its legacy LTC insurance problems. There were several related lawsuits, all of which were consolidated and assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman. (See, for example, Sjunde AP-Fonden v. GE, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-8457.)

On September 20, 2018, GE moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On October 12 the plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On February 27, 2019, new plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against GE, and said the new lawsuit was related to the old lawsuits. The new lawsuit was accepted as related to the old lawsuits and was assigned to Judge Furman.

On March 4 the judge ordered all the parties to confer and submit to him by March 13 a joint letter with suggestions on how to proceed. On March 13 the parties submitted the letter. On March 15 the judge adopted the suggestion and ordered the parties to submit to him, within two weeks after he rules on the pending motion to dismiss the old consolidated lawsuit, another joint letter on how to proceed. When I posted No. 329 on August 28, the judge had not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss the old consolidated lawsuit.

On August 29 the judge issued an opinion and order relating to the motion to dismiss the old consolidated lawsuit. He granted GE's motion to dismiss the old consolidated lawsuit

except as to (1) Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims concerning (a) factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K and (b) GE's failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period financial statements, which survive against GE and Bornstein; and (2) for now, Plaintiffs' Section 29(a) claims against each Individual Defendant.

The comments quoted above are in the concluding section of Judge Furman's lengthy and complex opinion and order. He went on to explain why he has decided to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the claims he dismissed. He ordered the parties to confer and submit to him, by September 19, a joint letter with their suggestions about the next steps in the litigation. One possibility is the filing of what would be the fifth amended consolidated complaint. (The full opinion and order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

General Observations

Several non-regulators made comments at the August 4 meeting of the NAIC's new LTC insurance task force. However, those non-regulators were handicapped because they had no knowledge of what had happened at the five regulator-only (secret) sessions. Regulators at the August 4 meeting undoubtedly have in their possession a summary of the discussions that occurred during the secret sessions. I would like to see the summary. My address for regular mail is P.O. Box 245, Ellettsville, IN 47429. If an envelope with no return address appears in my regular mail, I would be grateful.

Best's commentary on LTC insurance is copyrighted, and Best denied my request for permission to include it in the complimentary package I am offering to readers at the end of this post. However, on September 4 Best issued a press release about the commentary, and has no objection to my offering the press release, which is in the package. The press release includes a link for obtaining access to the commentary.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 71-page PDF consisting of the minutes of the August 4 meeting of the NAIC's new LTC insurance task force (13 pages), Best's September 4 press release about its commentary on GE's LTC exposure (1 page), and Judge Furman's August 29 opinion and order (57 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the September 2019 package about LTC insurance and GE.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 331: The Age 100 Problem—A Further Update on the Lebbin Lawsuit Against Transamerica

I have been writing for 18 years about "the age 100 problem" in life insurance. In No. 327 (August 19, 2019), I posted an update about a lawsuit filed by Gary H. Lebbin, a centenarian, and the Lebbin-Spector Family Trust ("Trust"). The trustees of the Trust are Gary's two children. The defendant is Transamerica Life Insurance Company. Here I provide another update. (See Lebbin v. Transamerica, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:18-cv-80558.)

Recent Developments

Several major 2019 developments in the case are described in No. 327. On January 30, by which time Gary was afflicted with dementia, Transamerica offered to settle with Gary for $10,000. On February 5 Gary accepted the offer and withdrew from the lawsuit. On February 22 the Trust filed an amended complaint that omitted Gary as a plaintiff, leaving the Trust as the only plaintiff. The amended complaint included five counts: (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) reformation, and (5) rescission.

On July 19 the judge issued an order granting the Trust's claim for breach of contract. The other four counts were denied by the judge or later withdrawn by the Trust. On July 30 the judge held a ten-minute conference. He canceled the trial, which had been set for August 5, because the parties said they had resolved the case. (A transcript of the conference is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

On August 9 the judge issued an order setting the briefing schedule to resolve the issue of damages on the Trust's breach-of-contract claim. The issue of damages is the only remaining issue in the case. The judge ordered the Trust to file, by August 30, a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) on damages. He also provided for the filing of possible further briefs on September 30, October 21, and November 8.

The Trust's MSJ on Damages

On August 30 the Trust filed its MSJ on damages. The MSJ incorporates a memorandum of law. Here is the concluding sentence of the MSJ (the full MSJ is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

For the foregoing reasons, [the Trust] respectfully request[s] that the Court enter summary judgment in [its] favor as to damages, awarding [the Trust] a return of all premiums paid to Transamerica in the sum of $1,670,140.91, along with prejudgment interest.

The prejudgment interest rates the Trust suggests are the Florida statutory rates at the time of each premium payment. The Trust does not anticipate a dispute over the calculation of the damages, and says it will provide the interest figure prior to the entry of final judgment.

General Observations

The MSJ provides a detailed discussion of the Trust's reasoning. It is important to note that the Trust claims damages for its breach-of-contract claim, which the judge had granted, rather than its rescission claim, which the judge had denied. The MSJ discusses in detail the distinction between a breach-of-contract claim and a rescission claim.

The judge's briefing schedule provides that Transamerica's reply brief, or its cross-motion for summary judgment on the damages relating to the breach-of-contract claim, is due September 30. I plan to report further developments.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 32-page PDF consisting of the transcript of the judge's July 30 conference (9 pages) and the Trust's August 30 MSJ on damages (23 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the September 2019 package about Lebbin v. Transamerica.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 330: A Special Request

A close friend of mine has been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The mission of the ALS Association (www.alsa.org) is

To discover treatments and a cure for ALS, and to serve, advocate for, and empower people affected by ALS to live their lives to the fullest.

I would be grateful to readers of this blog who join me in contributing to the ALS Association (P.O. Box 37022, Boone, IA 50037-0022). Please notify me at jmbelth@gmail.com. I will tell my friend of your kindness unless you prefer anonymity. Thank you.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com