Duhaime v John Hancock

  • 1999 - LC - Richard DUHAIME v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
    • Howard M. Metzenbaum
    • Decided: June 28, 1999, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
    • No. 98-2139. 
    • 1:96-cv-10706
    • Pacer - Yes
  • Duhaime, et al v. John Hancock Mutual, et al   8:1995cv01556 Florida Middle District Court 09/20/1995 03/27/1996

 

Court of Appeals Docket #: 98-2139 Docketed: 10/20/1998
Termed: 06/28/1999
Nature of Suit: 3890 Other Statutory Actions
Duhaime, et al v. Metzenbaum
Appeal From: District of Massachusetts, Boston
Fee Status: filing fee paid
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0101-1 : 96-10706 Lead: 98-1901
     Trial Judge: George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 04/04/1996
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed:
     08/11/1998      09/10/1998
  • Case 1:96-cv-10706-RGS Document 353-2 Filed 05/15/17 Page 8 of 73
    • -13. In addition to churning existing policyholders,
      John Hancock also instructed and trained its agents to sell life
      insurance policies by concealing or de-emphasizing that the
      product they were selling was merely a life insurance policy.
      John Hancock agents were instructed and trained to market life
      insurance policies, among other things, as investment plans,
      pension plans, mortgage protection plans, education funding plans
      and savings plans, and to conceal the fact that these "plans"
      were nothing more than life insurance policies.
    • Some of the most egregious examples of these
      deceptive sales practices are John Hancock's Single Premium
      Insured Deposit ( 11 SPID 11
      } sales presentation,~ 1 77, infra;
      John Hancock's Simplified Individual Pension Plan ("SIPP") sales
      presentation,~ 1 78, infra; John Hancock's "Private Pension"
      Plan; the "Mortgage Accelerator" and "Mortgage Protection" Plan;
      and the LEAP sales system and similar sales presentations.
    • 15. These sales presentations and accompanying
      materials were misleading and failed to disclose that a
      substantial portion of the "investment" would be used to fund the
      mor_tality risk or insurance coverage of the policy.
    • 16. The presentations and materials were also
      misleading in that they explicitly misrepresented to purchasers
      that the so-called "plan" or "deposit" was, with regard to its
      costs,/ risks and benefits, substantially equivalent, if not
      superior, to certificates of deposit, savings accounts, annuities
      or other bona fide investment vehicles.
    • 19. As a result of the above-described deceptive and
      wrongful practices developed by John Hancock and employed by its
      network of agents -- including the vanishing premium scheme, the
      churning scheme, the investment/savings scheme, the DAC tax
      assessment and Hancock's investment, dividend and interest
      crediting practices -- all Class Members sustained and will
      continue to sustain damages, losses and injuries.
    • 21. The sales practices.described herein were an
      enormous success for John Hancock. It is estimated that millions
      of life insurance products were sold to the unsuspecting
      plaintiffs and members of the Class based upon the fraudulent
      conduct described herein and John Hancock received hundreds of
      millions of dollars in premium income from the sales of these
      products.
    • Document 353-2 Filed 05/15/17 Page 28 of 73
    • 56. John Hancock knew, but failed to disclose, that
      the presentations being made by its sales force to unsuspecting
      existing policyholders ~nd prospective policyholders were false
      and misrepresented what, in fact, the policyholders were to
      receive in return for their premium dollars.
    • At no time were plaintiffs and
      members of the Class informed of this likelihood or of John
      Hancock's knowledge of the undisclosed information.
    •