Expect Focus Life Insurance (March 2018).

SDNY Ruling Narrows Claims in COI Suit

Insurance   |   Financial Services Regulatory   |   Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions   |   March 31, 2018

In EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA and The Duffy 2004 LLC v. AXA, in a February 14 ruling, AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company earned a sweet victory on its motion for partial dismissal of the complaints in two consolidated proceedings actions challenging its COI rate increases . The Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims (both contractual and tortious) and requests for punitive damages and declaratory relief. AXA did not move to dismiss the plaintiffs’ express breach of contract claim. Its narrowly focused motion succeeded in all respects.

The contractual implied-covenant claims were dismissed as duplicative of the express breach of contract claim. Notably, the court distinguished these cases from prior COI opinions, denying defendants’ motions to dismiss and stating: "the policies at issue in those cases did not explicitly constrain the insurers to apply COI increases ‘equitably’ or use only ‘reasonable’ assumptions in increasing COI rates …. Thus, the plaintiffs could state implied-covenant claims by alleging that the defendants had ‘exercis[ed] their limited discretion under the Policies in an unreasonable and unfair manner.’" The AXA policies, however, "expressly required AXA to exercise its discretion reasonably and equitably" when changing policy cost factors.

The tort-based implied covenant claims were dismissed under California law. The court recognized that "an insured cannot maintain a claim for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing absent a covered loss." It found that plaintiffs’ claims "do not allege that AXA has withheld insurance benefits owed under the policies."

Due to its dismissal of the tort claims (in this ruling), the court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages, as that relief was sought only in connection with plaintiffs’ tort claims. Finally, as other district courts have done in recent COI action rulings, the court exercised its discretion to entertain declaratory relief claims consistent with the Declaratory Judgment Act, or to decline to do the same, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claims as duplicative of the breach of contact claim.

©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, 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


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.