Life Insurance class actions have been prevalent over the past years. These class actions have included the theories of improper market conduct (vanishing premium, replacement, and retirement/investment cases), race based premiums and modal fees. Several life insurance companies have agreed to settle class actions under these theories, including New York Life Insurance Company, Franklin Life Insurance Company, American General Life Insurance Company, Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company and Life of Virginia. Beasley Allen has been involved in these class actions in that we represented individuals who chose to exclude themselves from the class action settlement, commonly referred to as “opt-outs.” In fact, our firm represented a majority of the opt-outs in several of the aforementioned class action settlements. However, we expect these “market conduct” class action settlements to decline in the future because most life insurance companies, with the exception of Guardian Life Insurance Company and Mutual of New York Life Insurance Company for instance, have settled the vanishing premium type class actions and individual opt-outs, thereby effectively putting an end to these cases.

Prior to May 13, 1994, those who practiced in the area of insurance fraud law found the law to be in a state of flux. There was a line of cases in Alabama that stated in the insurance fraud case when fraudulent conduct had been discovered by a Plaintiff, but between the time of purchase and the time of discovery no claims were made on the insurance policy in question, no cause of action for fraud would arise because the period of time had past without the Plaintiff having made a claim. These cases stood for the principle that you must have made a claim and have incurred damages in order for a fraud case to exist.

Prior to May 13, 1994, those who practiced in the area of insurance fraud law found the law to be in a state of flux. There was a line of cases in Alabama that stated in the insurance fraud case when fraudulent conduct had been discovered by a plaintiff, but between the time of purchase and the time of discovery no claims were made on the insurance policy in question, no cause of action for fraud would arise because the period of time had past without the plaintiff having made a claim. These cases stood for the principle that you must have made a claim and have incurred damages in order for a fraud case to exist.

From asbestos to tobacco to pharmaceutical products, mass tort litigation has become a powerful form of litigation in both state and federal courts. Mass tort litigation is a growing area of the law, which shows no signs of slowing down in the near future. Mass tort claims find their origins barely twenty-five years ago.1 Some scholars trace true mass tort cases back even further to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. In the 60’s lawyers began to represent passengers in plane crashes on a structured basis. They represented a multitude of plaintiffs and victims against a myriad of defendants including manufacturers, suppliers and the airline companies themselves. These cases, referred to as “mass accident” claims, where a catastrophic event results in a number of serious and fatal injuries, are usually followed by mass litigation.2 In mass accident litigation, injuries generally occur at a central location and usually manifest themselves immediately.

“What is truth?” Isn’t that the most important question to have answered in evaluating your chances of winning a case or settling it? No matter whether you are a lawyer, doctor, engineer or a scientist, if you’re going to be successful, you seek the answer to that question. If you are going to understand what your chances are in civil litigation, you have got to be involved in a truth-finding mission. As a lawyer, your primary mission in life could well be put in terms of: I am a seeker of truth.