MDL-1179 - LC - General American Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation

  • ILS/3:97-cv-00560 William P. Ludwig, et al. v. General American Life Insurance Co - Proceedings for case ILS/3:97-cv-00560 are not available
  • Half v. Metropolitan Life - not on pacer
  • Carol Louise Brown v. Gen. American Life, et al 0:2003cv03517 U.S. Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 10/15/2003 12/06/2004
  • Charles K. Knouse, et al v. Gen. American Life, et al 0:2003cv03510 U.S. Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 10/14/2003 12/06/2004
  • Patricia Palashoff, et al v. Gen. American Life, et al 0:2003cv03516 U.S. Court Of Appeals, Eighth Circuit 10/15/2003 12/06/2004
    • Originating Court Information:
      District: 0865-4 : 4:02-CV-1024 CDP Lead: 4:97MD1179CDP
      Court Reporter: Teri Hanold Hopwood, Court Reporter
      Trial Judge: Catherine D Perry, Senior District Judge
      Date Filed: 07/08/2002
      Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed:
      09/05/2003
  • 1997-2016 - U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) - CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:97−md−01179−CDP
    • Docket - Pacer - 59p
  • Missouri - In re: General American Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation. 
  • Appellate Case: 03-3517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2004 Entry ID: 1841122 - 13p
    • No. 03-3510 - Charles Kenneth Knouse
    • No. 03-3516 - Patricia S. Palashoff 
    • They contend that Pennsylvania’s “reasonable expectations” doctrine, as well as the 1996 class action, may toll some or all of their claims. We agree.2
    • In order to invoke the discovery rule, a party bears the burden of showing that it could not discover its injury despite the exercise of “reasonable diligence.”
    • Reasonable diligence is an objective standard, and the discovery rule will apply to toll a statute of limitations only where no amount of reasonable diligence would have enabled the injured party to discern the injury.
    • One Pennsylvania trial court has stated that, at least in the case of a noncommercial insured who is unsophisticated with regard to insurance policies, reasonable diligence entails a cursory examination of the cover page of the policy. See Half v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 65 Pa. D. & C.4th 246, 254-56 (Ct. C. P. Allegheny Co. December 8, 2003). If this is indeed true, there is nothing on the cover pages of any of the policies at issue here that would inexorably lead to a conclusion that plaintiffs (non-commercial, unsophisticated insureds) should have known that the vanishing premium concept allegedly explained to them would not occur as represented.
    • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held—in the context of insurance coverage
      disputes—that because consumers view insurance agents as “possessing expertise in a complicated subject,” it is not unreasonable for consumers to rely on the representations of the insurance agents rather than on the contents of the insurance policy. Rempel v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 370 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. 1977). Therefore, where an insurance company or its agent “creates in the insured a reasonable expectation of coverage that is not supported by the terms of the policy,” the insured’s reasonable expectation will prevail over the actual terms of the policy. Bensalem Township v. Int’l Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 38 F.3d 1303, 1311 (3d Cir. 1994). A non-commercial, unsophisticated insured is thus under a duty to read a policy to discover inconsistent terms only when, under the circumstances, it is “unreasonable not to read it.” Rempel, 370 A.2d at 369.
    • Because neither the applicability of the discovery rule nor the content of the
      plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations can be determined as a matter of law at this stage of the litigation, both issues should be submitted to a jury.