Menu

Expect Focus Life Insurance, September 2018

Even Disclaiming ‘Magic Words’ Won’t Save Plaintiffs from SLUSA Preclusion

Life Insurance & Annuity Litigation   |   Insurance   |   Life Insurance & Financial Lines   |   Class Actions   |   October 1, 2018
Download   
Share Page

In 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in California state court on behalf of all persons over the age of 60 who were issued a variable annuity policy by defendants within the state. The complaint in Davis v. Riversource Life alleged that the defendants failed to comply with California’s Unfair Competition Law by neglecting to include certain required disclosures. Specifically, the law mandates that any annuity contract issued to a senior citizen must disclose all surrender periods and charges and display a 30-day “free-look disclosure” plainly on the policy’s cover page. The purpose of a free-look period is to allow the policyholder the chance to return the policy and receive a full refund of the premiums without penalty. The plaintiff claimed that defendants’ failure to include this information on the policy’s cover page caused him to incur surrender charges that he would not have incurred had he been provided with proper notice of the potential penalties and free-look period.

In July, the court entered an order dismissing the action as barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which precludes plaintiffs from bringing class actions based on state claims involving the use of deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. In an attempt to save his claims from dismissal, the plaintiff argued that the amended complaint explicitly disclaimed fraud, thereby bringing it outside SLUSA’s reach. However, the court summarily rejected this argument as the plaintiff’s complaint was still based on deceptive practice claims, including misrepresentation and omission. In its order, the court asserted that plaintiff could not avoid SLUSA preclusion by “scrubbing the [complaint] of the ‘magic words’” while leaving in concepts intended to be covered by the Act.

When faced with a class action lawsuit, defendants should always be on the lookout for potential ways to preempt those claims at the outset. The Davis holding is a reminder that SLUSA preemption can be a useful tool for defendants seeking to defeat class action claims early in litigation. 

 

©2018 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.