Source: http://www.insurance.illinois.gov/legal/classaction.asp
Timestamp: 2014-10-02 14:27:40
Document Index: 436188706

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1601', '§ 1972', '§ 1962', '§1601', '§1872', '§1962', '§ 349', '§ 4', '§1962', '§1601', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 406']

Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (Act), class action settlement agreements impacting Illinois state residents are reported to the Illinois Department of Insurance (Department). Class members receive notice of proposed settlements from the immediate parties of the class action case and not through the Department. The Department does not provide legal advice or recommendations in these matters. The Department does not independently verify information submitted pursuant to the Act nor does the Department inform consumers of changes to settlements. Please do not contact the Department regarding class action settlements posted on this site. Contact information is provided.
Moore v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al.:
As reported to the Department, Moore v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al. involves a class action settlement in a lawsuit against Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and MetLife, Inc. (collectively, “MetLife”) that alleges MetLife failed to honor its contractual obligations under its Replacement Cost for Total Loss Endorsement by paying for the cost of repairs instead of paying for the cost of a full replacement of the vehicle. Whereby, if you had automobile insurance with MetLife, and since May 11, 2000: (i) filed a collision or comprehensive claim with MetLife; and
(ii) at the time the claim was filed, had a MetLife auto insurance policy with Endorsement V55O providing “full” replacement cost coverage; and
(iii) had a vehicle that was previously untitled, less than one year old, and had less than 15,000 miles at the time of loss; and either
(iv) the vehicle was deemed a total loss pursuant to the policy, but MetLife did not pay “full” replacement cost; or
(v) the vehicle was a “total loss” as defined in the policy, but MetLife failed to total the vehicle and pay its “full” replacement cost, you may be entitled to a share in the settlement fund. Persons not entitled to a share in the settlement fund include MetLife; its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates; entities in which MetLife has a controlling interest; and MetLife’s officers, directors, employees, agents, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, and assigns. The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for October 3, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge, in Courtroom 1 of the Federal Building and Courthouse at One Exchange Terrace, Providence, RI 02903.
The settlement information is located at the following website: http://www.rid.uscourts.gov. The toll free number to obtain additional information regarding the settlement is: 1-800-847-9094. The Class Administrator can also be contacted by postal mail at Moore v. Metropolitan Claims Administrator; C/O Rust Consulting, Inc.; P.O. Box 1895; Faribault, MN 55021-1895.
Michael Martin v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America and Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc.:
As reported to the Department, Michael Martin v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America and Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. is a class action filled in the United States District Court District of New Jersey Case No. 2:12-cv-06208 on August 16, 2013. The class consists of all persons who at any time after July 31, 2003, were awarded benefits under Saia’s long-term disability plan that were reduced based upon a monthly earnings amount calculated by using a 125,000 mile annual cap. The fairness hearing has yet to be determined.
The complaint alleges that Defendants wrongfully denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) to employees of Saia by miscalculating benefit payments under Saia’s long-term disability plan. Under the plan, Saia’s employees’ monthly long-term disability payments are tied to the employees’ average monthly earnings. Saia is alleged to have only used the first 125,000 miles of logged mileage when calculating the average monthly earnings of its Linehaul Drivers, and deemed any excess as overtime pay, not used in calculating disability pay. Prudential paid the benefits based on Saia’s alleged miscalculation of monthly earnings. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ payment of benefits in this manner constituted a wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(B) and seek equitable relief under ERISA and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Defendants deny they failed to comply with the terms of the plan or that they violated ERISA in any way Butler National Corp., et al. v. The Union Central Life Insurance Co., et al.:
As reported to the Department, Butler National Corp., et al. v. The Union Central Life Insurance Co., et al. is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Case No. 1:12-cv-177-SJD-KLL on March 1, 2012.* Whereby, if you are the current or former trustee, sponsor, fiduciary, or administrator of an employee pension plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") subject to Internal Revenue Code sections 401(a) or 401(k), and for which either Union Central or Ameritas serves or has served as a service provider at any time from March 1, 2006 through [the date that the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order], pursuant to the terms of a group variable annuity contract, you and your plan may benefit from this class action settlement.** The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for September 10, 2014 at the Potter Steward U.S. Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
The Amended Class Action Complaint brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Butler National Corp. ("Butler"), as the Plan administrator of the Butler National Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan; C3 Capital, LLC ("C3 Capital"), as the Plan administrator of the C3 Capital, LLC Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan and Trust and Rifkind Law Group ("Rifkind"), as the Plan administrator of the Rifkind Law Group 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan alleges that Defendants, Union Central and Ameritas breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA and engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA by contracting with mutual fund companies to receive "revenue sharing" payments (which amount to kickbacks). The Amended Class Action Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of fiduciary and violation of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules, and for co-fiduciary breach and liability for knowing breach of trust.
For additional information regarding the settlement, please contact Class Counsel, James E. Miller at Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, 65 Main Street, Chester, CT 06412 at the following number: 860-526-1100.
*The Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on April 16, 2014.
** This class is referred to in the Settlement Agreement as the "Monetary Relief Class." Members of the Monetary Relief Class affiliated with plans currently serviced by either Union Central or Ameritas are also part of a "Structural Changes Class."
In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation:
As reported to the Department, In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, involves a class action settlement in a lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Whereby, if you purchased or paid for branded Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a minor under the age of 18 between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2013, and if either (i) Celexa® or Lexapro® was prescribed to the Minor in Missouri; or (ii) the prescription was purchased in Missouri; or (iii) you or the minor were a domiciliary citizen of Missouri at the time of the prescription or purchase, you may be entitled to a share in the settlement fund. Entities, including Third-Party Payors, are part of the lawsuit if you purchased, paid for or made a reimbursement for branded Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a minor under the age of 18 between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2013, and if either (i) Celexa® or Lexapro® was prescribed to the Minor in Missouri or (ii) the minor were a domiciliary citizen of Missouri at the time of the prescription or payment, you may be entitled to a share in the settlement fund. Governmental entities are excluded from the lawsuit. The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. before Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge, in Courtroom Number 4 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, located at 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The settlement relates to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in connection with the marketing and sale of Celexa® and Lexapro® for use by Minors under the age of 18. Class Members who submit valid claims may be entitled to recover a payment in connection with their purchase or reimbursement of a purchase of branded Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a minor. The settlement information is located at the following website: www.Pediatric-Antidepressant-MissouriSettlement.com.
The toll free number to obtain additional information regarding the settlement can be found at: 1-877-772-6154. The Class Administrator can be contacted at Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, P.O. Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110.
Ira Marc Fladell, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.:
As reported to the Department, Ira Marc Fladell, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:13-cv-60721 on March 28, 2013. The class consists of all borrowers in the United States who, within the class period, were charged by the Wells Fargo Bank (“WFB”) Defendants under a hazard, flood, flood gap or wind-only lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) policy for residential property and either paid or still owe the net premium for that LPI policy to the WFB Defendants. The class period for property located in the State of Illinois is from July 5, 2002 through March 17, 2014. Excluded from the class are officers or directors of the Defendants; any U.S. or state judge or their spouses; borrowers whose LPI policies were canceled and premiums charged were fully refunded; borrowers who file a proper and timely request to be excluded from the class; and borrowers who are members of settlement classes in Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank (S.D. Fla. Case No. 1:11-cv-21233-RNS) or Guerrero v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D.Cal. Case No. 12-cv-4026 WHA). Class members may be entitled to participate in a settlement. The Fairness Hearing will be held on September 18, 2014.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated mortgage loan borrowers were charged improper and excessive premiums by the Wells Fargo Bank (“WFB”) Defendants for lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) policies issued by the Assurant* and QBE** Defendants. Specifically, the complaint alleges that LPI premiums improperly include the cost of unearned commissions paid to WFB’s affiliate, Defendant Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (“WFI”), bundled administrative costs, and unnecessary or “excess” coverage not required by law or the terms of the borrowers’ mortgage loans. The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C § 1601 et seq., and the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1972 et seq., and violations of Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and seek to recover all improper costs incurred related to the placement of insurance by WFB on their properties.
At the present time, a settlement website and toll-free number have not been established. For additional information, contact Class Counsel, Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq., at Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134 at 305-372-1800.
* “Assurant” means Assurant, Inc.; American Security Insurance Company; Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company; and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company. ** “QBE” means QBE Specialty Insurance Company; QBE Insurance Corporation; QBE First Insurance Agency, Inc.; QBE Financial Institution Risk Services, Inc.; and Praetorian Insurance Company. Hall et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
As reported to the Department, Hall et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., is a class action filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 1 Case No. 1:12-cv-22700-FAM on July 24, 2012. Whereby, if you were a borrower who had mortgage loans, home equity loans, or home equity lines of credit serviced by Bank of America, N.A., or BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, (formerly known as Countywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.) who were charged a premium for lender-placed hazard insurance coverage issued by Balboa Insurance Company, Meritplan Insurance Company, Newport Insurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Praetorian Insurance Company, or one of their affiliates within the Class Period of January 1, 2008 through February 3, 2014, you may be entitled to share in the settlement fund. The date of the Fairness Hearing has not been scheduled at this time.
The Corrected Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that the named Plaintiffs and the putative class and subclass they seek to represent were charged inflated force-placed insurance premiums by the Bank of America Defendants* for lender-placed hazard and flood insurance policies. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the Bank of America Defendants gave the QBE Defendants** the exclusive right to force new coverage in the event of a lapse or the detection of insufficient coverage. The Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with a business relationship, violation of the Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S. C. §1872 et seq., violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and (d), violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the New York General Business Law § 349, and a violation of Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101, et seq. Plaintiffs seek to recover all improper costs they have incurred related to the forced placement of hazard and flood insurance by the lenders and mortgage servicers, their affiliates, and their cooperating insurers. At the present time, a settlement website and toll-free number have not been established. For additional information, contact Class Counsel, Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq., at Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134 at 305-372-1800.
* The Bank of America Defendants consist of Bank of America, N.A., in its own capacity and as successor by merger to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, and Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc. (collectively “the Bank of America Defendants”).
** The QBE Defendants consist of Balboa Insurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation., individually and as successor-in-interest to Balboa Insurance Company, and QBE First Insurance Agency. QBE purchased Balboa from Bank of America in or around June 2011. Gordon Casey, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., and Celeste Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., et al.
As reported to the Department, Gordon Casey, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., and Celeste Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., et al. is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case Nos. 5:12-cv-820 and 1:13-cv-353, respectively, on January 31, 2014. Two Settlement Classes exist. The Flood Settlement Class is all persons who were charged by Citibank for lender-placed flood insurance (unless such charge was flat cancelled and refunded in full) in connection with a mortgage loan, home equity loan, or home equity line of credit secured by property in the United States during the time period from May 17, 2006 through the date of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Hazard Settlement Class is all persons who were charged by Citibank for lender-placed hazard insurance (unless such charge was flat cancelled and refunded in full) in connection with a mortgage loan, home equity loan, or home equity line of credit secured by property in the United States during the time period from January 1, 2007 through the date of the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. Class members may be entitled to a settlement payment if they file a claim and choose not to opt out of the settlement. The Fairness Hearing will be held on August 1, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowners/borrowers were charged excessive or improper premiums by Defendants Citibank, N.A. and CitiMortgage, Inc. (“the Citi Defendants”) for lender-placed hazard, flood or wind insurance policies issued by Assurant, Inc., American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company (“the Assurant Defendants”)relating to consolidated class actions styled Gordon Casey, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., and Celeste Coonan v. Citibank, N.A., et al. In addition, the Complaint alleges claims against the Citi Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and (d) (“RICO”). The Complaint also advances claims against the Assurant Defendants for violation of RICO Sections 1962(c) and (d), unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty.
At the present time, a settlement website and toll-free number have not been established. For additional information, contact Plaintiffs’ attorney, Frank Burt at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 400 East, Washington, DC 20007-5208 or 202-965-8100
Diaz et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al.
As reported to the Department, Diaz et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al., is a class action filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 1:13-cv-21104-MORENO/OTAZO-REYES on March 28, 2013. Whereby, if you were a borrower in the United States, who, within the Class Period from January 1, 2005 through the date of the Preliminary Approval of the Settlement on March 13, 2014 were charged by the HSBC Defendants* and/or their respective subsidiaries and affiliates as insureds or additional insureds under a hazard Lender-Placed Insurance Policy (“LPI”), you may be entitled to monetary and injunctive relief. ** The date of the Fairness Hearing will be held on September 18, 2014 in Courtroom 13-3 before the Honorable Federico A. Moreno at 10:00 a.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Corrected Class Action Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homeowner/borrowers were charged excessive or improper premiums by the HSBC Defendants for lender-placed hazard insurance policies. Plaintiffs allege that the way in which lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) policies were obtained and placed caused the rates and the amount of coverage to be excessive. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the HSBC Defendants gave the Assurant Defendants the exclusive right to force new coverage in the event of a lapse or the detection of insufficient coverage. Defendants deny any wrongdoing and assert that their actions are fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. The Plaintiffs allege Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unjust Enrichment, Violations of the Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendants from continuing the acts and practices described in the Complaint, award damages sustained by Plaintiffs, require that the Defendants refund all unjust benefits to Plaintiffs and the Class, together with pre- and post- judgment interest, attorney fees and costs, award actual damages and a penalty of $500,000 or 1% of Defendants’ net worth and award Plaintiffs and the Florida Subclass damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs under FDUTPA. At the present time, a settlement website and toll-free number have not been established. For additional information, contact Class Counsel, Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq., at Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134 at 305-372-1800.
* HSBC Defendants mean HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), Inc., HSBC Finance Corporation, Beneficial Company LLC, Beneficial Financial I Inc., HFC Company LLC, HSBC Consumer Lending (USA) Inc. and HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.
** The monetary relief will compensate class members for a significant part of the inflated portion of the amounts that they either paid or were charged for force-placed coverage. The parties have agreed that the HSBC Defendants shall not be required to pay out more than $32 million in the settlement of this action. The Injunctive relief will put an end to the LPI practices that are the subject of this lawsuit.
Leslie et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Co.
As reported to the Department, Leslie et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company (“Conseco”), is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:11-cv-81035-KAM on August 2, 2011. Whereby, if you currently own a Supplemental Medical Diagnostic and Outpatient Expense Rider* administrated by Conseco Life Insurance Company or have owned and filed a claim under a Supplemental Medical Diagnostic and Outpatient Expense Rider administered by Conseco Life Insurance Company on or after January 1, 2011, you may be entitled to share in the settlement fund. The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for July 25, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the United States District Court, Courtroom 316, 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant, Conseco breached the terms of a Supplemental Medical Diagnostic and Outpatient Expense Rider* it administered by calculating the amount of its payment under the Rider using discounted charges for services and supplies, rather than the provider’s undiscounted charges, the amount the healthcare provider billed for services or supplies before any reductions or discounts were applied. The Plaintiffs believe that the amount of Conseco’s payments under the Rider should be based on the provider’s undiscounted charges. The Complaint alleges causes of action for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class seek injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant from failing to honor its obligations under the policies at issue, restitution, monetary, and compensatory damages, costs and attorney’s fees and request that the Court issue a declaratory judgment for Plaintiffs and the Class. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement which was filed with the Court on February 25, 2014. Defense counsel is in the process of creating a website that will contain additional settlement information.
* The Rider was issued, and/or it is now administered by Defendant, Conseco and was designed to provide policyholders with a direct cash benefit in exchange for a regularly paid premium. See Complaint.
Christine Bauer-Ramazani et al. v. Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association of America-College Retirement and Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), et al.
As reported to the Department, Christine Bauer-Ramazani et al. v. Teachers Insurance And Annuity Association of America-College Retirement and Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), et al., is a class action filed in the United States District Court, District of Vermont, Case No. 1:09-cv-190, filed on August 17, 2009. Whereby, if you at any time during August 17, 2003 and May 9, 2013 requested a transfer or distribution of funds held in a CREF or TIAA variable annuity account covered by ERISA whose funds were not transferred or distributed within seven days of the date the account was valued and were denied the investment gains, you may be entitled to share in the settlement fund. The Fairness Hearing will be held on September 3, 2014 at 10:00 am in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, United State Courthouse, 204 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301.
The Consolidated Fourth Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Complaint”) alleges that the Defendants* wrongfully used customer funds after they asked that such funds be returned or transferred. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege the Defendants’ actions violate their fiduciary duties and constitute prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the following in Counts 1 through III of their Complaint, respectively: that Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty pursuant to ERISA § 404; allegedly breached their fiduciary duty of impartiality pursuant to ERISA § 404; and allegedly engaged in prohibited transactions pursuant to ERISA § 406. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seek equitable and legal relief under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of ERISA, together with statutory attorney’s fees.
Additional information will be located at the following website: www.TIAA-CREF-lawsuit.com.
*Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement and Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), College Retirement and Equities Fund (CREF), Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA), TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (TCIM), Teachers Advisors, Inc. (TAI), and TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services, LLC.