No. 404: Executive Compensation in the Insurance Industry—2019 Data from the Nebraska Department of Insurance

Background

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 the Forum ended with the December 2013 issue. From time to time since then, I have posted some executive compensation data on my blog. Recent tabulations include No. 335 (October 3, 2019), where I showed 2018 data from my three sources of information: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), and the Nebraska Department of Insurance (NDI). In No. 381 (July 13, 2020), I showed 2019 data from the SEC. In No. 385 (August 7, 2020), I showed 2019 data from the DFS. Here I show 2019 data from the NDI.

NDI Data for 2019

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

In the tabulation below, I show data for individuals who received at least $5 million in 2019. Where two or more individuals in a company are shown, they are listed in descending order of compensation.

The Allocation Problem and a Modification

Where companies are members of a holding company group, some companies show the total amount received by each individual from all companies in the holding company group. Some companies, however, allocate each individual's compensation to each company in the holding company group.

For companies that allocate, the difficulty in locating all companies doing business in Nebraska that are part of a holding company group has become increasingly prohibitive. For that reason, I have modified the tabulation shown below from past years in that this year I did not attempt to assemble the group data. I have instead shown the figures for the company with the largest dollar amounts for each group.

For some individuals listed below, because of the modification, the compensation figure shown is smaller, and in some instances probably much smaller, than the individual's total compensation from all members of the holding company group. Also, because of the modification, some companies probably are not listed because no individual had at least $5 million of compensation from a single company in their group.

NDI Data for 2019
Acuity, A Mutual Ins Co
Benjamin M Salzmann	$16,347,333
Aetna Life Ins Co
Richard M Jelinek	9,658,380
Karen S Lynch	8,673,924
AFLAC Inc
Daniel P Amos	14,744,603
Frederick J Crawford	5,505,399
Allianz Life Ins North America
Walter R White	6,746,838
Allstate Ins Co
Thomas J Wilson	16,261,339
Steven E Shebik	5,915,393
AMBAC Assurance Corp
Claude LeBlanc	5,289,234
American Family Ins Co
Jack C Salzwedel	11,251,032
American General Life Ins Co
Kevin Hogan	9,411,779
American United Life Ins Co
James S Davison	6,064,438
Amguard Ins Co
Sy Foguel	5,299,791
Assured Guaranty Corp
Dominic Frederico	12,736,290
Assurity Life Ins Co
Thomas E Henning	7,814,132
Athene Annuity & Life Assur Co
James Belardi	5,007,098
Atlantic Specialty Ins
Timothy M Miller	5,036,019
AXA Equitable Life Ins Co
Mark Pearson	6,295,387
BCS Ins Co
Howard F Beacham III	21,435,850
Brighthouse Life Ins Co
Eric T Steigerwalt	8,229,713
Care Improvement Plus of Texas
Janice Clayton Zigler	5,428,024
Chicago Title Ins Co
Raymond Randall Quirk	14,579,836
Roger Scott Jewkes	8,729,398
Michael Joseph Nolan	7,157,620
Anthny John Park	5,344,120
Chubb Indemnity Ins Co
John J Lupica	6,030,000
Paul J Krump	5,003,500
Continental Casualty Co
Dina Robusto	9,135,270
Employers Assurance Co
Douglas Dean Dirks	5,315,872
Essent Guaranty Inc
Mark Casale	7,636,915
Everest Reinsurance Co
Dominic J Addesso	10,759,779
Juan C Andrade	10,481,729
Farmers Ins Exchange
Jeffrey J Dailey	7,853,208
First American Title Ins Co
Dennis Gilmore	8,588,389
GEICO Casualty Co
Olza Minor Nicely	15,452,510
William Evan Roberts	7,789,401
Genworth Life Ins Co
Thomas McInerney	9,115,260
Globe Life & Accident Ins Co
Frank M Svoboda	9,359,904
William M Pressley	6,474,615
Bill E Leavell	5,400,498
Great American Ins Co
Carl H Lindner III	10,284,610
Great-West Life Assur Co (US)
Robert Shaw	7,638,745
Andra S Bolotin	5,902,744
Edmund F Murphy	5,215,422
Guardian Life Ins Co of America
Deanna Mulligan	8,606,700
Tracy L Rich	6,418,359
Hartford Fire Ins Co
Christopher Swift	6,175,641
Health Care Service Corp
Paula Steiner	31,013,500
Eric Feldstein	7,471,886
David Lesar	6,038,111
Horace Mann Ins Co
Marita Zuraitis	7,429,404
Humana Ins Co
Bruce D Broussard	24,635,360
Illinois Ins Co
Steven Menzies	10,657,018
Insurance Co of the West
Kevin Prior	13,694,265
Ernest Rady	5,861,143
Jackson National Life Ins Co
Paul C Myers	7,008,073
John Hancock Life Ins Co USA
Daniel Janis III	6,692,374
Emory Sanders Jr	5,765,776
Christopher Conkey	5,264,701
Liberty Mutual Ins Co
David H Long	12,701,326
Timothy Sweeney	5,341,983
Lincoln National Life Ins Co
Dennis R Glass	28,328,586
Randal J Freitag	7,747,826
Wilford H Fuller	7,332,269
Ellen G Cooper	6,073,150
Lisa M Buckingham	5,169,731
Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co
Roger Crandall	17,808,738
Elizabeth Chicares	6,933,041
Michael Fanning	6,420,327
Melvin T Corbett	6,337,670
Metropolitan Life Ins Co
Michel Khalaf	6,505,805
Steven J Goulart	6,338,392
Mortgage Guaranty Ins Corp
Patrick Sinks	7,389,088
National Western Life Ins Co
Ross R Moody	6,831,982
National Life Ins Co
Mehran Assadi	7,788,000
New York Life Ins Co
Theodore A Mathas	24,007,290
Craig L DeSanto	5,452,283
Anthony R Malloy	5,246,200
Northwestern Mutual Life Ins Co
John E Schlifske	13,692,772
Ohio National Life Ins Co
Gary Thomas Huffman	8,955,246
Pacific Life Ins Co
James T Morris	8,290,370
Penn Mutual Life Ins Co
Eileen McDonnell	5,596,160
Philadelphia Indemnity Ins Co
Robert D O'Leary	5,146,147
Principal Life Ins Co
Karl W Nolin	7,113,249
Daniel J Houston	7,000,237
Mustafa Sagun	5,232,118
Protective Life Ins Co
John Johns	11,046,696
Richard Bielen	6,749,265
Prudential Ins Co of America
Mark Brown Grier	7,633,867
Charles F Lowrey	6,854,886
Robert Michael Falzon	5,296,179
Stephen Pelletier	5,220,842
QCC Ins Co
Daniel J Hilferty	5,718,026
Radian Guaranty Inc
Richard Thornberry	9,040,149
Sagicor Life Ins Co
Dodridge Miller	12,468,464
Scor Reinsurance Co
Mark Kociancic	6,918,899
Selective Ins Co of America
Gregory Murphy	5,330,094
Standard Ins Co
John Gregory Ness	9,161,498
Starr Indemnity & Liability Co
Maurice R Greenberg	10,802,945
State Farm Mutual
Michael Leon Tipsord	10,271,892
Teachers Ins & Annuity Assn
Ronald Pressman	8,546,026
Roger Ferguson	6,252,325
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Bradford L Hewitt	7,013,638
Transatlantic Reinsurance Co
Michael C Sapnar	6,884,413
Kenneth Apfel	5,607,047
Travelers Casualty Co
Alan D Schnitzer	15,303,458
Willaim H Heyman	6,389,000
Avrohom J Kess	6,067,301
Jay S Benet	5,023,442
United of Omaha Life Ins Co
James T Blackledge	5,093,821
United States Liability Ins Co
Thomas P Nemey	21,417,692
Voya Retirement Ins & Annuity
Charles Patrick Nelson	5,427,368
Western & Southern Life Ins Co
John Barrett	9,499,300

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 403: General Electric Enters into a $200 Million Settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission

In No. 395 (October 26, 2020), I said General Electric Company (GE) had received a Wells notice on September 30, 2020 from the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The notice related to an SEC investigation of, among other things, GE's inadequate reserves for its legacy long-term care (LTC) insurance business. On December 9, 2020, GE filed an 8-K (significant event) report disclosing that GE and the SEC had entered into a $200 million settlement to end the previously disclosed SEC investigation.

The GE 8-K

In the 8-K, GE said it had reached a settlement in connection with the SEC investigation. GE went on to say (the relevant section of the 8-K is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

Consistent with common SEC practice, GE neither admits nor denies the findings in the administrative order that the SEC issued today. Under the terms of the settlement, GE consented to the entry of an order requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $200 million and to cease and desist from violations of specified provisions of the federal securities laws and rules promulgated thereunder.

The SEC Order

A paragraph near the beginning of the SEC Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings reads as follows (the full Order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent [GE] has submitted an Offer of Settlement which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purposes of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over it and the subject matter of these proceedings, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, as set forth below.

No Admission of Wrongdoing

The "neither admits nor denies" language is an important part of the GE/SEC settlement. In No. 244 (December 11, 2017), I wrote about an SEC settlement in August 2013 with Philip A. Falcone and companies associated with him. There I quoted at some length from a January 2014 speech by then SEC Chair Mary Jo White. Here is a brief, edited description of what she said:

For many years, the SEC, like virtually every other civil law enforcement agency, typically did not require entities or individuals to admit wrongdoing in order to enter into a settlement. This no admit/no deny settlement protocol makes sense and has served the public interest well. She cited such things as more and quicker settlements and avoidance of litigation risk. So why modify the no admit/no deny protocol? She cited such things as a greater measure of public accountability and the need for public confidence in the strength and credibility of law enforcement. She said that, as a U.S. Attorney, she had required an admission of wrongdoing in a 1994 case, and she brought that mind set when she became SEC Chair in 2013.

General Observations

One knowledgeable reader with whom I spoke about the settlement thought the dollar amount of the settlement was a pittance. However, I am not in a position to express an opinion on that matter.

As for the no admit/no deny protocol, it will be interesting to see what happens when the SEC, the Department of Justice, and other federal law enforcement agencies become part of the Biden administration. I cannot predict what will happen, but I hope the no admit/no deny protocol will receive close attention.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 20-page PDF consisting of an excerpt from the GE 8-K (1 page) and the SEC Order (19 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about the GE/SEC settlement.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 402: Brian Alfaro, a Former Texas Securities Broker, Goes to Federal Prison

On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Texas issued a press release announcing that Brian Keith Alfaro, a former Texas securities broker (CRD #4049120), was sentenced to 121 months in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of almost $10 million for "scheming to defraud investors." I say "former" because Alfaro has been barred from the securities industry. The press release is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Federal Indictments

On November 28, 2018, a federal grand jury in San Antonio handed down an eight-count sealed indictment against Alfaro. The indictment was unsealed a few days later, after Alfaro's arrest. He pleaded not guilty.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Samuel F. Biery. President Clinton nominated him in November 1993. The Senate confirmed him in March 1994. He served as Chief Judge from June 2010 to December 2015.

On June 19, 2019, the grand jury handed down a superseding eight-count indictment. The seventh of the eight mail fraud counts in both indictments was later dismissed at the government's request. The superseding indictment is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Federal Jury Trial

In early February 2020, the federal jury trial was held. The jury found Alfaro guilty on all seven remaining counts. The jury verdict form is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

On November 20, 2020, the judge sentenced Alfaro to 121 months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, no fine, a $600 special assessment, and restitution of almost $10 million. (See U.S.A. v. Alfaro, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Case No. 5:18-cr-879.)

The Texas Order

On November 9, 2020, Texas Securities Commissioner Travis J. Iles issued an Emergency Cease and Desist Order directed at Alfaro, members of his family, and others associated with him. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The FINRA Report

"Broker Check" is operated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on its website (finra.org). I reviewed the report on Alfaro. He is described as a "previously registered broker" and as currently "barred." The report shows six "disclosure events" consisting of one "criminal" event, four "customer dispute" events, and one "investigation" event.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 32-page PDF consisting of the U.S. Attorney's press release (1 page), the superseding indictment (10 pages), the jury verdict form (3 pages), and the Texas emergency order (18 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about Alfaro.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 401: Unum Life of America Takes a $2 Billion Hit to Its Long-Term Care Insurance Reserves

The MBOI Examination of ULA
On June 30, 2020, Eric A. Cioppa, the Superintendent of the Maine Bureau of Insurance (MBOI), accepted and made public the Report of Examination of Unum Life Insurance Company of America (ULA) as of December 30, 2018 (Report). On page 19 of the Report are two paragraphs disclosing that ULA suffered a $2 billion hit to the reserves for its long-term care (LTC) insurance business. Here are the two paragraphs (the full Report is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

As discussed in the Summary of Significant Findings and Note 1 to the Comments on the Financial Statements of this Report, the MBOI found ULA's gross LTC reserves to be deficient by $2,085,740,649 as of December 31, 2018 as a result of this examination. On May 1, 2020, the MBOI approved a permitted practice which allows ULA to delay full recognition of the statutory reserve deficiency identified in connection with this examination that would otherwise be required under Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles (SSAP) 54 Individual and Group Accident and Health Contracts. The request was made subject to the confidential Phase in, Guardrails and Monitoring Plan for Unum Life Insurance Company of America LTC Statutory Reserve Strengthening ("Plan"). The reserve increase will be recognized over a seven-year period beginning with the statutory financial statements for the year-ended December 31, 2020 and continue until the statutory financial statement for the year-ended December 31, 2026 according to a defined schedule, as outlined in the Plan. The permitted accounting practice was approved retroactively to December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019 such that no additional reserves would be required to be reported until year-end 2020. If this permitted practice had not been granted, it is estimated that ULA's net income and surplus at December 31, 2018 would have been reduced by approximately $2.1 billion due to the need to write off the uncollectible reinsurance recoverable and reverse the cession of the $2.1 billion of reserves to Fairwind. The MBOI will monitor ULA's compliance with the Plan during the reserve phase-in period by continuing the limited scope examination.

[ULA] paid dividends of $492,000,000 to Unum Group during 2019. [ULA] paid a dividend to Unum Group of $234,000,000 in the first quarter of 2020.

Fairwind, referred to above, is Fairwind Insurance Company. It is an affiliated captive insurance company with which ULA had entered into reinsurance arrangements. Those arrangements are discussed in the Report.

The Kansas/GE Parallel

The MBOI bailout of ULA bears a striking resemblance to the 2018 bailout of General Electric Company (GE) by the Kansas Insurance Department. I discussed the Kansas/GE matter in No. 258 (March 19, 2018).

In January 2018, GE disclosed it would contribute $15 billion of capital to Employers Reassurance Corporation (ERAC), a GE subsidiary domiciled in Kansas. ERAC requested and the Kansas department approved an arrangement allowing GE to "spread and delay" contributing the additional reserves over the next seven years.

GE also reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating the matter. In October 2020, GE reported that it received a Wells notice from the SEC staff indicating the staff may recommend enforcement action by the SEC. I discussed the Wells notice in No. 395 (October 26, 2020).

General Observations

I do not know whether the SEC will investigate the MBOI bailout of ULA. However, such an investigation would come as no surprise, given the similarity between the MBOI/ULA bailout and the Kansas/GE bailout. In any case, I plan to report further developments relating to both bailouts.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 24-page PDF containing the recent MBOI examination report on ULA. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about the MBOI/ULA examination report.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 400: Stranger-Originated Life Insurance—A Follow-Up to My Recent Blog Post About the Legislation in New Jersey

In No. 317 (June 13, 2019), I discussed developments that led to recent legislation in New Jersey prohibiting stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI). In No. 396 (November 2, 2020), I discussed the recent legislation in New Jersey, and said I was not aware of any other state in which STOLI is prohibited by law. In response, several readers called my attention to other states with laws prohibiting STOLI. That prompted me to investigate and prepare this further follow-up. The complimentary packages I offered in Nos. 317 and 396 remain available.

The New York State Prohibition

One reader shared with me some information about the New York State prohibition of STOLI. Effective in 2010, what are now sections 7814 and 7815 of the New York Insurance Laws prohibit STOLI. For the purposes of the prohibition, STOLI is defined as

Any act, practice or arrangement, at or prior to policy issuance, to initiate or facilitate the issuance of a policy for the intended benefit of a person who, at the time of policy origination, has no insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of this state.

The NAIC and NCOIL Model Laws

Another reader shared with me an article entitled "Deterring STOLI: Two New Model Life Settlement Acts." The article was in the July 2008 issue of the magazine Estate Planning. The authors were Kenneth W. Kingma and Stephan R. Leimberg.

The article discussed the adoption of model laws by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2006, and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) in 2007. As I went over the article, I had the impression that the NAIC model law frowns upon STOLI but does not include an outright prohibition of the practice. At the same time, I had the impression that the NCOIL model law not only frowns upon STOLI but also includes an outright prohibition of the practice. The article is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Minnesota and Nevada Prohibitions

After reading the Kingma-Leimberg article, I wrote to some state insurance departments asking whether they impose statutory prohibitions on STOLI. Spokespersons representing Minnesota and Nevada responded to my inquiry.

The Minnesota spokesperson said the state prohibits STOLI and cited section 60A0783 of the 2012 Minnesota Statutes requiring an insurable interest. The Nevada spokesperson said the state prohibits STOLI and cited section 687B040 of the Nevada Revised Statutes requiring an insurable interest. Neither spokesperson was able to say whether their statutes were enacted in the wake of the NCOIL model law, but I think they were.

The Illinois Consumer Alert

In the course of preparing this follow-up, I stumbled across a "Consumer Alert" that was issued in January 2008 by what is now the Illinois Department of Insurance. The alert advised "consumers to proceed with caution when considering participation in a STOLI arrangement." The Department said that it "does not sanction or approve" such arrangements, and that "These transactions and parties to these transactions may be subject to the Illinois Insurance Code and other applicable laws in the State of Illinois." The alert also described the nature of STOLI arrangements. The alert is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 19-page PDF containing the Kingma-Leimberg article about "Deterring STOLI" (18 pages) and the Illinois Consumer Alert on STOLI (1 page). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the December 2020 package about STOLI.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 399: John Hancock Defends a Class Action Lawsuit Over Huge Cost-of-Insurance Increases on Universal Life Policies

On June 5, 2018, Jeffrey Leonard (Leonard) and others filed a class action lawsuit against John Hancock Life Insurance Company of New York (John Hancock) and others relating to huge cost-of-insurance (COI) increases on certain universal life insurance policies. On August 22, 2018, John Hancock answered the complaint. On April 9, 2020, Leonard filed a first amended complaint. On May 4, 2020, John Hancock answered the first amended complaint. (See Leonard v. John Hancock, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-4994.)

The case was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. President Clinton nominated him in May 1998. The Senate confirmed him in October 1998. He took senior status in January 2011.

Thrust of the Case

The "Nature of the Action" section of the first amended complaint consists of 20 paragraphs, and includes a few redactions. Here are some lightly edited excerpts from that section:

1. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of policyholders who have been subjected to unlawful and excessive COI increases in violation of their insurance policies.

2. The policies at issue are Performance Universal Life policies issued between 2003 and 2010.

3. In February 2018, John Hancock's parent company, Manulife Financial Corporation, which reports on behalf of John Hancock in consolidated statements, announced that it had suffered a $1.6 billion net loss in the fourth quarter of 2017.

4. In May 2018, John Hancock sent cryptic letters to policyholders informing them of a massive increase in COI rates and charges on certain Performance Universal Life policies.

6. John Hancock did not disclose that, when reviewing the proposed COI increase, the New York Department of Financial Services concluded that the assumptions John Hancock had originally used when pricing the policies were not reasonable.

8. Internally, John Hancock had long recognized that its original assumptions were no longer valid.

10. The COI increase is massive. For example, one plaintiff took out a policy on her life in 2008. After paying ten years of premiums at John Hancock's "projected" rates, John Hancock suddenly increased her COI rates by about 70% per year, causing her to have to pay about $225,000 more in premiums per year to keep her coverage. She is now aged 87.

11. Other policyholders have seen increases ranging from 17% to 75%. John Hancock did not provide policyholders with any reason for the wildly disparate COI increases.

12. The COI increase violated terms of the policies in numerous respects.

17. John Hancock did not implement the COI increase on other products it issued between 2003 and 2010.

19. In violation of the policy provision promising illustrations "upon request," John Hancock refused to provide illustrations for subject policies from January 2017 through May 2018.

20. The COI rate hike and John Hancock's actions preceding it breached the policies in at least five respects.

The "Factual Background" section of the first amended complaint consists of 53 paragraphs. Also, the first amended complaint contains the following seven claims for relief: (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of certain New York laws, (3) violation of certain other New York laws, (4) violation of certain California laws, (5) violation of certain other California laws, (6) violation of certain Texas laws, and (7) violation of certain New Jersey laws. The first amended complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Future Developments

On July 27, 2020, Judge Hellerstein issued a scheduling order listing several pretrial deadlines. For example, the fact discovery deadline is February 22, 2021, the expert discovery deadline is June 28, 2021, and the briefing for class certification is to be completed by September 27, 2021. The scheduling order does not mention settlement, but includes a deadline for "dispositive motions." The scheduling order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations

It appears that the case has a long way to go. I plan to report on significant future developments, such as class certification and the terms of any proposed settlement.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 58-page PDF consisting of the plaintiffs' first amended complaint (56 pages) and the judge's recent scheduling order (2 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the November 2020 package about the case of Leonard v. John Hancock.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 398: Long-Term Care Insurance—Yet Another Update on the Skochin Lawsuit Against Genworth

In No. 384 (July 30, 2020), I posted my most recent update on the Skochin class action lawsuit against Genworth Financial, Inc. (Genworth) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC) relating to premium increases on long-term care (LTC) insurance policies. In that post, I provided a link to my first post on the case, and links to my first two updates. (See Skochin v. Genworth, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-49.)

Background

On January 18, 2019, Pennsylvania residents Jerome and Susan Skochin and Maryland resident Larry Huber filed a class action lawsuit against Genworth and GLIC. The plaintiffs had purchased 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, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne 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.

Recent Developments

On July 10 and 14, 2020, the judge heard arguments on the objections, and ordered further briefing. On September 14, he ordered further briefing.

On November 5, the judge issued a memorandum opinion and an accompanying order overruling class members' objections to the plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement. Also on November 5, he issued a memorandum opinion and an accompanying order granting class counsel's motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses. The four November 5 documents are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

An Invitation

When I posted No. 384, I said I do not intend to express an opinion about the fairness of the settlement from an actuarial standpoint because I am not an actuary and do not feel comfortable expressing such an opinion. However, I would welcome expressions of opinion from actuaries. As an aid to expressing an opinion, note that the complimentary packages offered in my five blog posts on the case are available and would provide a good starting point. If you need further documents, I can send you the current court docket and provide you with any court documents you would like to see. 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 99-page PDF consisting of the judge's memorandum opinion and accompanying order granting final approval of the settlement (68 pages), and the judge's memorandum opinion and accompanying order granting approval of attorney fees and expenses (31 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the November 2020 package about the case of Skochin v. Genworth.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 397: The Age 100 Problem—A Further Update on the Lebbin Lawsuit Against Transamerica

I have written extensively about what I call "the age 100 problem" in general, and about the Lebbin lawsuit against Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Transamerica) in particular. The most recent update on the case is in No. 372 (May 18, 2020). That blog post contains a detailed summary of the district court case. For that reason, I am dispensing with a summary of that case and including in this further update only major developments in the appellate case. (See Lebbin v. Transamerica, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 20-11756-EE.)

The Appellate Filings

On August 31, 2020, Transamerica filed a 78-page brief in the Eleventh Circuit. On September 8, Transamerica filed a 1,517-page, six-volume appendix. On October 30, the Lebbin-Spector Family Trust (Trust) filed a 71-page brief. Transamerica's brief and the Trust's brief are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Transamerica's brief makes five arguments: (1) plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is barred by the statute of limitations, (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on their claim for breach of contract based on an alleged ambiguity, (3) the district court should not have excluded extrinsic evidence that established the intent of the parties, (4) the district court erred in resolving Transamerica's defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel without considering any evidence, and (5) the district court's ruling on damages should be reversed. Transamerica concludes:

For the foregoing reasons, Transamerica respectfully requests that this Court reverse the summary judgment orders of the district court and direct entry of judgment in Transamerica's favor.

The Trust's brief includes detailed responses to each of the five arguments in Transamerica's brief. The Trust concludes:

For the foregoing reasons, [the Trust] respectfully request[s] that this Court affirm the summary judgment orders of the district court.

General Observations

At this writing, there is no timetable for the appellate court case. I plan to report on important developments in the case.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 149-page package consisting of Transamerica's brief (78 pages) and the Trust's brief (71 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the November 2020 package about Lebbin v. Transamerica.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 396: Stranger Originated Life Insurance Is Now Illegal in New Jersey

On October 28, 2020, the law firm of Cozen O'Connor issued a three-page press release entitled "New Jersey Enacts Anti-STOLI Legislation." The press release announced that recent legislation enacted in New Jersey has rendered stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) illegal in the state. The press release, written by Cozen attorneys Charles J. Vinicombe and Michael J. Miller, is in the complimentary November 2020 package offered at the end of this post.

The new legislation (Assembly Bill 1263) was unanimously approved by the New Jersey Assembly and by the New Jersey Senate. It was signed into law by the governor on October 19, 2020. It supplements the New Jersey Viatical Settlements Act by outlawing STOLI, which is defined as

an act, practice, or arrangement to initiate or procure the issuance of a policy in this State for the benefit of a third party investor who, at the time of policy inception, has no insurable interest under the laws of this State in the life of the insured.

Background

In No. 317 (June 13, 2019), I discussed the developments that led to the recent legislation. It all began with a dispute between Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Wells Fargo Bank. A $5 million policy was issued in 2007. Wells Fargo later acquired the policy in a bankruptcy proceeding and thereafter continued to pay the premiums. The insured died in 2014, and Wells Fargo sought to collect the death benefit.

Sun Life investigated and discovered massive fraud in the original application for the policy. The elderly insured's income and assets were vastly overstated, her life insurance in force was vastly understated, and a phony inspection report verified the false information. The application named a trust as owner and beneficiary of the policy, and the insured's grandson signed the application as trustee. Five weeks later, the grandson resigned as trustee and appointed certain investors (I often refer to them as speculators in human life) as successor co-trustees. The trust agreement was amended so that most of the benefits would go to the investors. More than two years later, after the expiration of the two-year contestability period, the trust sold the policy and the investors received nearly all the proceeds.

The Courts

Sun Life refused to pay the death benefit, and sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was void ab initio (from the beginning). Wells Fargo counterclaimed for breach of contract and, if the court voided the policy, sought a refund of the premiums it paid.

The federal district court in New Jersey found that New Jersey law applied, that it was a STOLI transaction lacking insurable interest in violation of the state's public policy, and declared the policy void ab initio. The court granted Wells Fargo a refund of the premiums it paid, on the grounds that Wells Fargo was not responsible for the fraud.

On appeal, the federal Third Circuit found no dispositive New Jersey case law, and certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court:

1. Does a life insurance policy that is procured with the intent to benefit persons without an insurable interest in the life of the insured violate the public policy of New Jersey, and if so, is that policy void ab initio?
2. If such a policy is void ab initio, is a later purchaser of the policy, who was not involved in the illegal conduct, entitled to a refund of any premium payments that they made on the policy?

The New Jersey Supreme Court answered yes to both parts of the first question. On the second question, the court ruled that a party may be entitled to a refund of premiums it paid on the policy, "depending on the circumstances." To decide the appropriate remedy, the court ruled that trial courts should develop a record and balance the relevant equitable factors, such as a party's level of culpability, its participation in or knowledge of the fraud, and its failure to notice red flags.

General Observations

My first article about the secondary market for life insurance policies was in the March 1989 issue of The Insurance Forum, the monthly newsletter I published from January 1974 through December 2013. My second article about the secondary market was in the March 1999 issue of the Forum, and was prompted by my first evidence of what later became known as STOLI.

From the beginning, my views about the secondary market for life insurance policies in general, and about STOLI in particular, have been strongly negative. I think life insurance companies have instituted safeguards to prevent significant amounts of new STOLI business from being initiated. The problem now is the handling of the huge volume of STOLI business that was initiated during the heyday of STOLI about 15 years ago. That business continues to move around among a shrinking number of investors. I think the STOLI business will continue to generate litigation for many years.

I am not aware of any state, other than New Jersey, in which STOLI is prohibited by law. However, I am aware of certain legal restrictions in Canada. I would welcome comments from readers about other legal prohibitions relating to STOLI.

Available Material

In the above mentioned No. 317, I offered a complimentary 69-page PDF containing details of the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, and the articles in the March 1989 and March 1999 issues of the Forum. That June 2019 package remains available.

Now I am offering a three-page PDF containing the Cozen O'Connor press release. Send an email to jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the June 2019 package and/or the November 2020 package about STOLI.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 395: General Electric and Genworth—A Pair of Updates

Long-term care (LTC) insurance, General Electric Company (GE), and Genworth Financial Inc. (Genworth), which specializes in LTC insurance, have been the subjects of several of my blog posts. Recently both companies disclosed developments that prompt this update.

GE

On January 16, 2018, GE shocked the insurance world when it disclosed it will contribute about $15 billion (spread over seven years) to a reinsurance subsidiary relating to a run-off block of LTC insurance. On January 24, 2018, GE disclosed the existence of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). I wrote about these matters in No. 257 (March 12, 2018) and No. 258 (March 19, 2018).

On October 6, 2020, GE filed an 8-K (significant event) report disclosing developments relating to the SEC investigation. Here are two of the three relevant paragraphs in the 8-K (the three paragraphs are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post):

On September 30, 2020, the SEC staff issued a "Wells notice" advising GE that it is considering recommending to the SEC that it bring a civil injunction action against GE for possible violations of the securities laws. GE has been informed that the issues the SEC staff may recommend that the SEC pursue relate to the historical premium deficiency testing for GE Capital's run-off insurance operations, as well as GE's disclosures relating to such run-off insurance operations. The staff has not made a preliminary decision whether to recommend any action with respect to the other matters under investigation.

The Wells notice is neither a formal allegation nor a finding of wrongdoing. It allows GE the opportunity to provide its perspective and to address the issues raised by the SEC staff before any decision is made by the SEC on whether to authorize the commencement of an enforcement proceeding. GE disagrees with the SEC staff with respect to this recommendation and will provide a response through the Wells notice process. If the SEC were to authorize an action against GE, it could seek an injunction against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, and other relief within the Commission's authority. The result of the Wells notice and any enforcement action are unknown at this time.

On October 7, 2020, the front page of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal carried a 931-word articled entitled "SEC Readies Civil Action in GE Accounting Inquiry." The reporters were Theo Francis and Ted Mann. Here are the first two sentences of the article:

Federal securities regulators have warned General Electric Co. of a civil-enforcement action over its accounting for a legacy insurance business, adding a fresh hurdle to efforts to turn around the once-mighty manufacturer. The industrial giant said in a securities filing Tuesday that it received the so-called Wells notice on Sept. 30 over the company's accounting for reserves related to an insurance business it has been trying to wind down for years.

Genworth

On October 21, 2016, Genworth entered into a merger agreement with China Oceanwide. Since then, the parties have entered into "waiver agreements," under which the parties extended the "end date" in the merger agreement. I wrote about these matters in No. 311 (May 2, 2019), by which time the parties had entered into nine waiver agreements.

On October 1, 2020, Genworth filed an 8-K report disclosing that the parties had entered into a sixteenth waiver agreement on September 30. The end date in the latest waiver agreement appears to be November 30, 2020. The 8-K lists the fifteen previous waiver agreements and a detailed description of the latest waiver agreement. (The 8-K is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.)

General Observations

I plan to report on further significant developments relating to the SEC investigation of GE. I also plan to report further on the pending Genworth merger agreement with China Oceanwide.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 9-page package that consists of GE's 8-K report dated October 6 (3 pages) and Genworth's 8-K report dated October 1 without exhibits (6 pages). Send an email to jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2020 package about GE and Genworth.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 394: Equitable Financial (f/k/a AXA Equitable)—An Update on the Reinstatement of Universal Life Policies

In No. 391 (September 30, 2020), I wrote about two individual federal court lawsuits against Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company (Equitable), which was formerly known as AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, relating to the reinstatement of universal life insurance policies. Both lawsuits were filed by the same plaintiff. One of the cases is in New York and the other is in North Carolina. There is nothing new to report on the New York case. Here I provide an update on the North Carolina case and describe an amazing email from one of my readers.

The North Carolina Case

On October 8, 2020, Equitable filed three post-trial documents in the Wiener v. Equitable case in North Carolina: (1) motions to dismiss and for post-trial relief, (2) brief in support of motions to dismiss and for post-trial relief, and (3) consent motion to extend stay of judgment enforcement. It is anticipated that Wiener will oppose the motions, Equitable will reply to the opposition, and the judge will rule on the motions. The three documents are shown in their entirety in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

An Amazing Email

In response to No. 391, I received an amazing email from a reader. In it he reported an incident involving an Equitable universal life policy issued many years ago. My reader was not the writing agent, but became an advisor to the insured after the policy was issued. The policy was owned by a trust and had a face amount of more than $1 million. After the estate tax credit was increased, the insured decided he no longer needed the policy. In 2012, the insured transferred the policy to a child who planned to continue paying premiums.

In 2018, the insured called Equitable regarding the status of the policy. The insured was told the policy had lapsed. The insured was not told the lapse date at that time. The insured asked my reader what to do. My reader suggested that the insured (1) request in writing (by FedEx so delivery could be documented) a copy of the 60-day lapse pending letter, (2) copies of any correspondence from the USPS or any other service indicating that mail was returned as undeliverable or improperly addressed, and (3) copies of annual reports for 2017 and prior years. The insured sent the request by FedEx.

The following day, the insured received a letter from Equitable saying the policy lapsed in 2014. The letter said "in the interest of good customer service," Equitable was willing to reinstate the policy. The conditions were payment of a premium to cover two months of cost-of-insurance (COI) charges and the signing of a settlement agreement and release. The deadline for those steps was about 30 days after the communication was sent to the insured.

The communication from Equitable also included a copy of a 60-day lapse pending letter, a lapse notice, and a copy of the policy annual report for the preceding policy anniversary. The communication did not say these copies had previously been mailed to the insured.

Thus Equitable reinstated the policy without any evidence of insurability and without requiring payment of COI charges from the 2014 lapse date up to the 2018 reinstatement date. At the time of the reinstatement, the insured was more than 75 years old and the COIs were substantial.

General Observations

My reader and I surmise that Equitable drastically altered its reinstatement practices in an effort to avoid more individual lawsuits, or class action lawsuits, over its reinstatement practices. If our supposition is correct, universal life policyholders of Equitable, and perhaps universal life policyholders of other companies, owe a debt of gratitude to Wiener for his two lawsuits against Equitable, irrespective of the final results of those cases. My reader and I also realize there may be other explanations for Equitable's generosity in the case described in my reader's email.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 27-page package consisting of Equitable's three post-trial documents in the North Carolina case. Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2020 package about Wiener v. Equitable.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 393: Greg Lindberg—Another Update on the Federal Criminal Case against Him and His Associates

No. 388 (August 24, 2020) was the latest of several updates on the federal criminal lawsuit against Greg E. Lindberg and three associates. Here I provide another update to reflect important recent developments in the case. (See U.S.A. v. Lindberg, U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Case No. 5:19-cr-22.)

District Court Judgments

On August 28, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. issued a judgment against Robert Cannon Hayes, who was the chairman of the state Republican party in North Carolina. He had pleaded guilty to five counts. Counts 1 through 4 were dismissed on the government's motion. On the fifth count, Judge Cogburn sentenced him to one year of probation, a $100 assessment, and a fine of $9,500.

On September 4, Judge Cogburn issued a judgment against Lindberg sentencing him to 87 months in prison on each of two counts to be served concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release on each count to be served concurrently, an assessment of $200, and a fine of $35,000.

Also on September 4, Judge Cogburn issued a judgment against John D. Gray, a Lindberg consultant who had been found guilty by the jury on two counts, sentencing him to 30 months in prison on each count to be served concurrently, followed by two years of supervised release on each count to be served concurrently, and an assessment of $200. The judgments against Hayes, Lindberg, and Gray are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

Notices of Appeal

On August 19, as indicated in No. 388, when Lindberg was sentenced to 87 months in prison, his attorney told Judge Cogburn that Lindberg planned to appeal, and asked the judge to allow Lindberg to remain free pending the appeal. Judge Cogburn denied the request and ordered Lindberg to report to prison when directed by prison officials.

On September 2, Lindberg filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Judge Cogburn's August 19 denial. On September 9, John D. Gray, a Lindberg consultant who was found guilty by the jury, filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

On October 7, after Lindberg was instructed to report to prison on October 20, Lindberg filed a motion to extend the self-surrender date for two reasons associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. One reason related to Mr. Lindberg's health, and the other related to interference with the preparation of his appellate brief. On October 13, Judge Cogburn denied the motion. Lindberg's motion to extend and Judge Cogburn's denial of the motion are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Appellate Court

On September 10, in the Fourth Circuit, Lindberg filed a motion for release pending appeal. On September 15, the government opposed the motion. On September 18, Lindberg replied to the government's opposition. On September 23, in a one-sentence order, Circuit Judge Diana Gibbon Motz, with the concurrence of Circuit Judges Barbara Milano Keenan and Stephanie D. Thacker, denied Lindberg's motion for release pending appeal. (See U.S.A. v. Lindberg, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 20-4470.)

General Observations

At this writing (October 14), Lindberg's date of October 20 for reporting to prison apparently still stands. I plan to report further developments in this case.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 38-page package consisting of the judgment against Hayes (5 pages), the judgment against Lindberg (7 pages), the judgment against Gray (6 pages), Lindberg's motion to extend the self-surrender date (17 pages), and Judge Cogburn's denial of the motion to extend (3pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2020 package about Lindberg.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 392: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Thirty State Securities Regulators File a Lawsuit Against Eight Defendants

On September 22, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the securities regulators of thirty states filed, temporarily under seal, a complaint in federal court against TMTE Inc. (also known as Metals.com) and seven other defendants. The regulators are those in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

On the same day, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a statutory restraining order, a memorandum in support of the motion, an appendix in support of the motion, a bench memorandum, and a recommendation for appointment of a temporary receiver. Two days later, CFTC lifted the seal on the complaint. (See CFTC v. TMTE, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Case No. 3:20-cv-2910.)

The Complaint

The plaintiffs allege that, from at least September 1, 2017 through the present, the defendants "have engaged and continue to engage in a fraudulent scheme to defraud at least 1,600 persons throughout the United States into purchasing gold and silver bullion." Here are four items from the "Summary" section of the complaint:

4. Defendants' scam is particularly egregious because they preyed on persons between 60 and 90 years of age and swindled them out of their retirement funds by charging them fraudulent prices to purchase Precious Metals Bullion.

6. Defendants directed SDIRA [self-directed individual retirement accounts] and Cash Account investors to purchase specific Precious Metals Bullion at grossly inflated prices that bore no relationship to the Prevailing Market Price. Defendants did not disclose the actual value of the Precious Metals Bullion and instead provided investors with invoices showing exorbitant and unreasonable prices.

9. Contrary to Defendants' material misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants knew or had a reckless disregard for the truth that virtually every one of their SDIRA and Cash Account investors during the Relevant Period lost the majority of the funds invested in fraudulently overpriced Precious Metals Bullion.

15. Unless restrained and enjoined by the Court, Defendants are likely to continue engaging in the acts and practices alleged in this complaint or in similar acts and practices, and funds they have obtained fraudulently may be misappropriated or otherwise dissipated.

The complaint includes thirty counts of alleged wrongdoing, one count for each of the thirty states. The complaint is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The Order

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Sam A Lindsay. On September 22, U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey issued an order granting the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a statutory restraining order. He also approved the plaintiffs' recommendation for the appointment of a temporary receiver, and appointed Kelly Crawford to that position. The order is in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations

I learned of this case through a press release issued by the Texas State Securities Board, which is headed by Texas Securities Commissioner Travis J. Iles. The fact that the CFTC and the securities regulators of thirty states are the plaintiffs prompt me to believe that this is an important case.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 129-page package consisting of the complaint (106 pages) and the order (23 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the October 2020 package about CFTC v. TMTE.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com

No. 391: AXA Equitable Life—Two Individual Lawsuits about the Reinstatement of Universal Life Policies

Malcolm H. Wiener (Wiener), a resident of Connecticut, filed two individual lawsuits against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (AXA) about his efforts to reinstate three universal life insurance policies that had lapsed. One of the cases, referred to in this post as "the New York case," began in 2015 and remains ongoing. The other case, referred to in this post as "the North Carolina case," began in 2018, went to trial in 2020, and post-trial motions are pending. (See Wiener v. AXA, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:16-cv-4019; and Wiener v. AXA, U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Case No. 3:18-cv-106.)

The New York Case

Wiener filed the New York case in a state court in Connecticut. AXA removed the case to a federal court in New York, where AXA is based. The case has dragged on ever since. The most recent docket item, a declaration in support of a motion for summary judgment, was filed on August 25, 2020.

Wiener filed a third amended complaint in 2016. The defendants are three AXA companies and David Hungerford, Wiener's AXA agent. Wiener was born in 1935. In 1986 and 1987, at the age of 51, he bought three AXA universal life insurance policies. The polices were for $9 million, $9 million, and $2 million. Shortly thereafter he reduced them to $7.2 million, $7.2 million, and $1.6 million.

In 2013, when Wiener was aged 78, he received by regular mail a policy termination notice and an application for reinstatement. He promptly submitted the application for reinstatement, together with the necessary medical evidence of insurability. Three months later, AXA denied the application for reinstatement.

The third amended complaint describes the matter in detail and includes eight counts of alleged wrongdoing. The complaint and AXA's answer to the complaint are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

The North Carolina Case

Wiener filed the North Carolina case in a state court in North Carolina, where AXA has a major service office. AXA removed the case to federal court in North Carolina. The case recently went to trial, and the jury rendered its verdict on September 10, 2020. The verdict form contained three questions:

1. Was Plaintiff Malcolm Wiener injured by the negligence of Defendant AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company?
2. What amount is Plaintiff Malcolm Wiener entitled to recover from Defendant AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company?
3. By what amount, if any, should Plaintiff Malcolm Wiener's actual damages be reduced because of his unreasonable failure to avoid or minimize his injuries?

The jury's answers to the questions were: (1) Yes, (2) $16,000,000, and (3) $8,000,000. On the same day, the clerk of the court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Also on the same day, the judge issued an order providing the parties with ten days to file post-trial motions. Wiener's complaint, AXA's answer to the complaint, and the jury verdict form are in the complimentary package offered at the end of this post.

General Observations

I believe, but am not certain, that the answer to the second question on the jury verdict form (the $16 million of damages) is the sum of $7.2 million, $7.2 million, and $1.6 million, which are the reduced death benefits of the three policies. I do not know how the jury arrived at the answer to the third question on the verdict form (the $8 million reduction in the damages). I tried, without success, to contact an attorney for Wiener in the North Carolina case to see whether he can confirm my belief about how the jury arrived at the $16 million in damages, and to help me understand how the jury arrived at the $8 million reduction in damages. I plan to post a follow-up when and if I learn anything further.

Available Material

I am offering a complimentary 76-page package consisting of Wiener's third amended complaint (without exhibits) in the New York case  (31 pages), AXA's answer to the third amended complaint (19 pages), Wiener's complaint (without exhibits) in the North Carolina case (12 pages), AXA's answer to the complaint (12 pages), and the jury verdict form (2 pages). Email jmbelth@gmail.com and ask for the September 2020 package about Wiener v. AXA.

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

Email: jmbelth@gmail.com

Blog: www.josephmbelth.com