Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-02433/USCOURTS-alnd-2_04-cv-02433-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACQUELINE D. HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W A S H I NGTON NATI ONAL

IN S URAN C E C O .; C O N SE C O

SERVICES, L.L.C.; THOMAS B.

HANEY; TRUSTMARK NATIONAL

BANK,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 04-B-2433-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is presently pending before the court on Motions to Dismiss filed by

defendant Washington National Insurance Co., (doc. 3), and Conseco Services, L.L.C., (doc.

2). Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (doc. 17), and a

Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 20), asking the court to dismiss defendant Trustmark National

Bank. Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of

counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,

(docs. 2 and 3), are due to be granted; plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint, (doc. 17) is due to be denied, and plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 20), is due

to be granted.

FILED

 2005 Sep-12 AM 11:24

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:04-cv-02433-SLB Document 21 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff has sued defendants – Washington National Insurance Co.; Conseco Services,

L.L.C.; and Trustmark National Bank – for damages caused by plaintiff’s purchase of a

health insurance policy. Plaintiff’s claims are based on her allegation that defendants:

suppressed or concealed from Plaintiff the material facts that in the event any

of the insureds under Plaintiff’s policy suffered significant illness or injury,

Plaintiff would be placed in a tier or category with other policyholders who

suffered significant illness or injury, and Plaintiff’s premium would be

increased to exorbitant amounts that would make the policy unaffordable to

Plaintiff.

(Doc. 1, Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 9.) Her Complaint contains five causes of action:

1. Fraud – “Defendants defrauded Plaintiff through [their] intentional, willful,

wanton, reckless and/or negligent misrepresentations and suppressions of

material fact concerning the premiums charged for the ‘group’ coverage

purchased and the increases in said premiums, which Plaintiff justifiably relied

upon to [her] detriment.” (Id. ¶ 27.)

2. Fraudulent Concealment – “In addition to making affirmative

representations to Plaintiff, the Defendants wrongfully concealed and

suppressed from Plaintiff the true nature of the pattern and practice in which

the Defendants were engaged.” (Id. ¶ 30.)

3. Conspiracy – “Defendants conspired to mislead Plaintiff concerning the

premium increases on the ‘group’ policies sold to her by imposing improper

and illegal premium increases on said policies and by suppressing and

concealing the actual basis for their premium increases. Defendants conspired

to constructively cancel, by exorbitant premium increase, the policies of

individuals such as Plaintiff, who made substantial claims or suffered from

certain medical conditions, and to improve Defendants’ profit margin on these

policies.” (Id. ¶ 33.)

4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty – “Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff

to disclose material facts and circumstances . . . . Defendants breached their

fiduciary duties to Plaintiff in that Defendants wrongfully failed to calculate

the premiums on these insurance policies in a fair and equitable manner . . .

Case 2:04-cv-02433-SLB Document 21 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 4
3

and wrongfully failed to disclose that the increases in premiums . . . were

based on factors other than the group claims experience.” (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.)

5. Breach of Contract – “Defendants . . . entered into a contract to provide

‘group health’ insurance to Plaintiff in return for premiums quoted, and fairly

and accurately computed, in accordance with the statements and

representations made to Plaintiff . . . . The premiums actually charged to

Plaintiff . . . were substantially more than the amount of premiums due had

those premiums been properly computed.” (Id. ¶¶ 44-45.)

On March 23, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to file an opposition to defendant’s

Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 15.) The court noted that plaintiff did not need to “address

defendants’ arguments that the statute of limitations bar[red her] tort claims,” (id. n.1),

because the court found such claims were time-barred in its Memorandum Opinion denying

plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (see doc. 13 at 7-8 (citing Smith v. National Security Insurance

Co., 860 So. 2d 343, 346-47 (Ala. 2003)).

In her response to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff states that she “disagrees

with the Court’s decision” regarding her tort claims, (doc. 16 ¶ 1); along with her response

she filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (doc. 17). Her proposed

Amended Complaint did not contain a breach-of-contract claim. (See doc. 17, Ex. 1.)

Moreover, the proposed Amended Complaint does not contain additional “facts and

circumstances” to demonstrate how plaintiff’stort claims are timely or fall within the savings

clause of Ala. Code § 6-2-3.

Because plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of her contract claim and because her

Amended Complaint fails to show her tort claims were timely filed, defendants’ Motions to

Case 2:04-cv-02433-SLB Document 21 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 4
4

Dismiss, (docs. 2 and 3), will be granted. All claims against defendants Washington National

Insurance Company and Conseco Services, L.L.C., are due to be dismissed. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, (doc. 17), will be denied.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss her claims against the remaining defendant,

Trustmark National Bank. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted and all

claims against defendant Trustmark National Bank will be dismissed.

An Order granting defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (docs. 2 and 3), denying plaintiff’s

Motions for Leave to File Amended Complaint, (doc. 17), granting plaintiff’s Motion to

Dismiss, (doc. 20), and dismissing all claims against all remaining defendants will be entered

contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

DONE this 12th day of September, 2005.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02433-SLB Document 21 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 4