Summary Judgment Victory for Life Insurer in Annuity Class Action

In Tabares v. Equitrust Life Ins. Co., a California Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Equitrust in a class action on behalf of a previously certified class of California policyholders of certain market-indexed annuities.

The plaintiffs alleged that Equitrust breached the contracts in the manner in which it calculated both the minimum fixed interest rate, and the maximum caps on certain indexed-fund return rates; and in its application of the policies’ premium bonus provisions. The plaintiffs also alleged wrongdoing related to Equitrust’s sales practices. Based on the foregoing, they alleged breach of contract, fraud, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory relief claims.

The court previously certified a class of all California policyholders of four particular annuity products for the breach of contract claims, but denied certification based on any of the other theories. Notably, however, the breach of contract claim was treated as containing a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In its recent decision granting summary judgment, the court rejected both the express and implied contract theories. First, it held that the express terms of the contract supported Equitrust’s position that the premium bonuses were properly calculated and applied.

Second, it held that the discretion the contract afforded Equitrust to set renewal rates for the fixed rate provisions and the index caps, and the manner in which Equitrust calculated those rates, was not objectively unreasonable, and therefore did not support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court held that, because Equitrust exercised its discretion within the scope of the contract’s express terms, "its use of that discretion to pursue its own advantage, even at the expense of class members is simply not actionable."

©2026 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.