McKean Evans

Ninth Circuit Decision Shows Life Insurance Pitfalls for Policyholders; Clarifies Jurisdiction in Insurance Disputes

The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Elhouty v. Lincoln Benefit Life, Case No. 15-16740 (March 27, 2018) is notable for two reasons. It illustrates the pitfalls of certain life insurance policies that supposedly pay for themselves, and it clarifies the jurisdictional standard governing when insurance disputes can be litigated in federal as opposed to state courts.

Elhouty purchased a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy from Lincoln Benefit Life Company with a $2 million face value. Adjustable life policies are often marketed as giving the policyholder all the advantages of death benefit protection, an interest-bearing account for investment purposes, and flexibility as to how premiums are paid. The policies often come with a sales pitch that the policy’s investment component will effectively pay off the future premiums, without mentioning that the investment returns are often inadequate to cover future premium increases.

Elhouty’s case illustrates this pitfall: for years, Elhouty arranged for his premiums to be paid directly out of the policy’s net surrender value, but failed to notice when the net surrender value was exhausted and he was sent a bill for $55,061.49 to keep the policy in force. Since Elhouty never paid the additional premium, Lincoln Benefit claimed the policy lapsed. Elhouty disputed Lincoln Benefit properly notified him of the additional premium he owed, and filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the policy remained in force.

Elhouty sued in state court, and Lincoln Benefit removed the action to federal court (conventional wisdom holds federal courts are more insurer-friendly than state courts). To properly remove the action, Lincoln Benefit was required to establish that the amount of money at issue in the lawsuit exceeded $75,000.00. Lincoln Benefit argued the amount at issue was the full $2 million policy face value; Elhouty claimed it was only the $55,880.08 in premiums he allegedly owed Lincoln Benefit.

On the jurisdictional issue, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Lincoln Benefit. The court determined the unpaid premiums were not in dispute because Lincoln Benefit did not seek to recover them from Elhouty. Elhouty had had the option to pay $55,880.08 to keep the policy in force, but the real dispute in the lawsuit was the policy’s validity. The court clarified that, in cases where the “controversy relates to the validity of the policy and not merely to liability for benefits accrued,” the policy’s face value is the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes. Thus, the court ruled the amount in controversy was $2 million and federal courts had jurisdiction.

The court also agreed with Lincoln Benefit on the merits of the dispute. Elhouty argued Lincoln Benefit’s policy termination notice for unpaid premiums was defective because Elhouty never received notice. But the court ruled that the language of the policy and applicable state law required only that the notice be mailed, not that the policyholder actually receive it.

For insurance lawyers, Elhouty is useful for its clarification of the jurisdictional standard. For policyholders, Elhouty is a reminder of the importance of keeping your premium payments up to date and not taking the insurer’s promotional materials at face value.

New ERISA Rule Restores Important Rights to Insureds

For insureds, ERISA (which governs most employer-sponsored insurance) has a serious downside. Insureds and plan participants who dispute the company’s denial of their claims for coverage or benefits must submit to ERISA’s administrative appeal process before they can file a lawsuit challenging the company’s decision. This can disadvantage the participant because failure to dot i’s and cross t’s in the administrative appeal can cause the participant to lose important rights in litigation. Moreover, because ERISA excludes many traditional state-law remedies such as punitive or exemplary damages and gives no right to a jury trial, even plan participants who successfully navigate the administrative appeals process and make it to court often face an uphill battle.

Accordingly, insurance companies spent several decades designing their benefit plans and policies to leverage ERISA against the insured. One recently-published internal memo recommended the company get as many policies as possible covered by ERISA to reduce the money the company had to pay to its insureds. The memo did a test study of 12 non-ERISA cases in which the company paid of a total of $7.8 million, estimating that ERISA’s application would have reduced the company’s liability in those cases to $0 to $0.5 million. The author concluded “the advantages of ERISA coverage in litigious situations are enormous.”

: Wallace Falls, Central Cascades.

Recognizing that ERISA can favor the company over the insured or participant, the federal Department of Labor promulgated a regulation aimed at leveling the playing field, which became effective on April 1, 2018. Because the Department of Labor concluded the majority of ERISA disputes arise in disability and health plans, the new rule focuses on these types of benefits specifically. The rule’s upshot is:

Insurers can no longer pay their employees more, or promote them, or threaten to fire them, based on how many claims they deny;
Claimants under disability policies must receive a clear and detailed explanation of why their claim was denied, and, particularly, the company must explicitly address its disagreement with opinions about the claimant’s condition by treating physicians or Social Security;
Clearly state any deadlines by which the insured or participant must file a lawsuit challenging the denial of benefits;
Disability claimants must also receive a clear statement of their rights to appeal a denial of a benefit claim;
If the company upholds its claim denial based on new information, the company must permit the insured or participant to review and respond to the new information before the denial becomes final;
Claimants must be specifically advised of their right to examine the insurer’s entire claim file to permit them to evaluate the basis for the claim denial; and
Notices must be written in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner if the situation warrants.

Importantly, violations of the new rule can permit the insured or participant to bypass the administrative appeal process and sue in court directly. This reduces the risk that an insured or participant loses rights in litigation through technicalities in the appeal process.

Hopefully, the Department of Labor’s new rule will go a long way towards leveling the playing field for ERISA policyholders and plan participants.

Can The Insurer Change Your Policy Without Notice?

A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision emphasizes that insurers can change policy terms upon renewal with only minimal notice to the insured, even if the notice consists only of a terse email with a hyperlink to “terms and conditions.”

The insurer’s renewal notice is a common pitfall for policyholders, who often set their policy premiums to pay automatically and set the policy to renew automatically. Having set the policy on “autopilot,” the policyholder receives the automatic renewal notice and thinks they do not need to closely read it, on the assumption that renewing the old policy means they are getting the same coverage. But insurers often add material changes to their policies in renewal notices, which policyholders may not realize until years later when a loss they thought was covered turns out to be excluded under the modified policy.

This was the issue in the Washington Court of Appeals’ recently-published decision in Jackson v. Esurance Insurance Company, Case No. 75506-4-L. The court’s decision parses coverage under Mr. Jackson’s Esurance auto insurance policy and the policy’s exclusion for racing. Whether a car was involved in racing at the time of an accident would seem straightforward, but that was not the case for Mr. Jackson, whose policy included an expanded racing exclusion Esurance added in the fine print of his renewal policy. This decision reminds policyholders to always check the fine print of the insurance policy renewal notice because it may not be consistent with their expectations.

In February 2006, Mr. Jackson purchased a personal auto insurance policy from Esurance. Esurance delivered the policy to Mr. Jackson electronically pursuant to Esurance’s business model as an internet-based insurance company. Mr. Jackson’s original policy excluded: “Loss to ‘your covered auto’ or any ‘non-owned auto’, located inside a facility designed for racing, for the purpose of: a. Competing in; or b. Practicing or preparing for any prearranged or organized racing or speed contest.” In January 2010, Mr. Jackson renewed his Esurance policy. The renewal policy contained a broader racing exclusion, also excluding: “Participating in any racing school, driving school, driver training, skills training, race driving experience, or race adventure program.”

In June 2014, Mr. Jackson attended an Audi driving-skills training program at the Pacific Raceways racecourse. Mr. Jackson wanted to make sure his insurance covered him for any damages that might occur during the event, so he checked the copy of his policy available on Esurance’s website. Esurance’s website only contained the original policy with the narrow racing exclusion that did not exclude “driving school” participation.

Mr. Jackson crashed his vehicle during the driving skills program. He made a claim with Esurance. Esurance denied his claim under the expanded racing exclusion’s exclusion for racing school participation, quoting the current policy language.

Melting snow from higher up the mountain created this impromptu waterfall on Kachess Ridge, near Cle Elum.

Mr. Jackson sued Esurance under Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) and Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), as well as bringing claims for breach of the policy contract and common law bad faith. He claimed that Esurance failed to properly notifyhim of the 2010 policy amendment expanding the racing exclusion, and that Esurance’s conduct was deceptive and unlawful in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court dismissed Mr. Jackson’s lawsuit. Mr. Jackson appealed to the Court of Appeals, who affirmed the dismissal.

First, the Court of Appeals held Esurance’s 2010 broadening of the racing exclusion was enforceable. The Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Jackson that Washington law required Esurance to notify him before amending or modifying the policy. But the court noted Washington law does not require notice be given in a specific manner, and permitted Esurance to deliver notices of policy changes electronically. Mr. Jackson consented to receive policy notices electronically when purchasing his original policy from Esurance. Even though Esurance’s renewal consisted of a terse email with a hyperlink to renewal “terms and conditions” not contained in the email itself, the court ruled this was sufficient to give Mr. Jackson notice of the expanded racing exclusion.

Second, the Court of Appeals determined Esurance’s electronic notice of the expanded racing exclusion was not deceptive or unlawful under the Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Jackson argued his difficulty in locating the actual policy on Esurance’s website rendered Esurance’s notice procedures deceptive. The court rejected that argument because Esurance provided Mr. Jackson instructions to access his policy when he first purchased it in February 2006. The court attributed Mr. Jackson’s difficulty solely to his decision not to carefully read the renewal notices Esurance sent him.

Can the ERISA Plan Deny Coverage Because you Made a Technical Mistake When Enrolling?

So you sign up for insurance through your employer. The HR people say “yup, you’re signed up all right!” You pay premiums for a few years. Then, you make a claim and the insurance company says you’re not covered – turns out, you filled out the paperwork wrong when you signed up for coverage.

Can they do that? According to at least one federal appeals court, the answer’s “no.” In Salyers v. MetLife, Case No 15-56371 (September 20, 2017), the court found the employee was entitled to coverage despite failing to properly enroll.

Susan Salyers bought a $250,000 life insurance policy on her husband through an employer-sponsored plan. Salyers paid premiums on the $250,000 coverage amount. After Salyers’ husband passed away, the insurer (MetLife) paid out only $30,000 and denied coverage for the full $250,000 Salyers had paid premiums for.

Looking down on Gem Lake in the early morning.

It turned out that Salyers made a mistake when signing up for coverage. Salyers forgot to submit a form regarding evidence of insurability with her coverage election. The terms of the ERISA Plan explicitly required the evidence of insurability form for Salyers to purchase the full $250,000 in coverage.

But the court ruled that MetLife waived its right to deny coverage based on the evidence of insurability requirement. Under the federal common law of agency, the knowledge and conduct of Salyers’ employer could be attributed to MetLife. Salyers’ employer knew (or should have known) that Salyers’ coverage election required evidence of insurability; they knew Salyers signed up for $250,000 in coverage and they knew you could only get $250,000 in coverage with the right form.

Despite having not received evidence of insurability from Salyers, her employer deducted premiums from Salyers’ paycheck, in amounts corresponding to $250,000 in coverage, and sent Salyers a letter confirming $250,000 in coverage. These actions were so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the evidence of insurability requirement that they gave Salyers a reasonable relief that Metlife had relinquished its right to deny coverage under that requirement.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Salyers for the amount of the $250,000 policy that remained unpaid.

The key to Salyers’ case was that Salyers, the employer and Metlife all acted as though Salyers really had signed up for the full $250,000. Salyers paid premiums for the full amount, the employer treated her as purchasing coverage at the full amount, and the mistake Salyers made didn’t really hurt the employer or Metlife.

Appeals Court Ruling Clears the Way for Bad Faith Suits Against Individual Insurance Adjusters

The Washington Court of Appeals just decided an important issue in insurance disputes: confirming the policyholder can sue the individual insurance adjuster as well as the insurance company itself. In Keodalah v. Allstate Insurance Company and Smith, No. 75731-8-I, the court ruled: “we hold that an individual insurance adjuster may be liable for bad faith and CPA violations.” This significant ruling has several implications for future insurance bad faith litigation.

The underlying insurance claim arose when Mr. Keodalah was in a car wreck and made an uninsured motorist (“UIM”) claim with his insurer Allstate. Allstate’s internal investigation and the police report uniformly established the motorcyclist was solely at fault for the collision. Allstate’s adjuster, Ms. Smith, nevertheless insisted Keodalah was 70 percent at fault, made up facts about the collision she later admitted were false, and refused to pay the full claim.

Keodalah sued Allstate as well as Smith individually, asserting claims for bad faith, violations of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), and violations of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”). The trial court dismissed Keodalah’s claims against Smith without a trial, ruling that insureds can’t sue individual adjusters for insurance bad faith.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals decided the trial court was wrong and that policyholders like Keodalah can sue individual insurance adjusters as well as the insurance company. The court relied on Washington insurance law which imposes a duty of good faith on “all persons” engaged in the business of insurance, including specifically “the insurer…and their representatives.” (emphasis added). Because Ms. Smith, as an insurance adjuster, “was engaged in the business of insurance and was acting as an Allstate representative,” the appeals court had no difficulty concluding Smith owed Keodalah a duty of good faith and could be sued for breaching that duty. The court also distinguished several other Washington and federal court decisions the adjuster relied on.

Keodalah has several potential implications for future insurance disputes. Obviously, the adjuster’s personal exposure adds a significant dimension to the dispute. And foreign insurers employing Washington adjusters could likely be sued in state court without removal to federal court (which is typically more favorable to the insurer), because federal courts typically only have diversity in insurance disputes where all the parties are citizens of different states.