UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 19, 2010
IN RE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIFE TREND INSURANCE SALES AND MARKETING LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRE-CLASS CERTIFICATION FORM OF NOTICE AND TURNOVER OF MAILING INFORMATION FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS On JULY 7, 2010, PLAINTIFFS CEDRIC BRADY, CHARLES HOVDEN, MARION HOVDEN, EUGENE KREPS, JOHN MCNAMARA, AND HISAJI SAKAI, EACH OF WHOM IS A PLAINTIFF IN THE ACTION CAPTIONED BRADY V. CONSECO INC., AND BILL W. MCFARLAND, WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ACTION MCFARLAND V.CONSECO LIFE INS.CO., (COLLECTIVELY, "PLAINTIFFS") FILED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PRE-CLASS CERTIFICATION FORM OF NOTICE AND TURNOVER OF MAILING INFORMATION FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS ("MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE").
NO. 3:08-CV-5746 (N.D. CAL.), NO. 3:-09-CV-598 (M.D. FLA.)
The Court, having considered the papers and pleadings submitted, as well as the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Notice is granted.
2. The form of Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A, as amended by the Court, is approved.
3. Plaintiffs are hereby authorized to appoint Garden City Group as an administrator to mail the form of notice attached hereto as Exhibit A to the same set of Conseco policyholders to whom Conseco intends to mail or otherwise distribute, the Regulatory Settlement or information pertaining to the Regulatory Settlement, including any release forms.
4. Conseco shall utilize its best efforts to transmit, no later than Monday, July 19, 2010, by 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), via a secure e-mail address to be provided by Garden City Group, a complete set of names and addresses of Conseco policyholders identified in the immediately preceding paragraph in a useable format, including the date on which Conseco anticipates sending its regulatory notice to such individuals. Conseco shall also provide contact information for a Conseco representative to coordinate directly with a representative from the Garden City Group to ensure that timely, complete, and useable mailing data has been provided to the Garden City Group. Garden City Group shall transmit the attached notice to individuals on the same schedule that Conseco anticipates providing its notice.
5. Garden City Group shall maintain the mailing information in confidence and will not release such information to Plaintiffs' counsel or to any one else absent further order of the Court.
6. Garden City Group shall post a website to provide the following documents:
A. Complaints and Answers:
1. Amended Complaint (Brady action)
2. Conseco Life Insurance Company's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint (Brady action)
3. Amended Complaint (McFarland action) 4. Conseco Life Insurance Company's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint (McFarland action)
B. Pleading and Argument Regarding Currently Operative Class Certification Motion:
1. Plaintiffs' Amended Joint Motion for Class Certification
2. Conseco Life's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Joint Motion for Class Certification (when it is filed)
3. Plaintiffs' Joint Reply Brief in Support of Their Amended Motion for Class Certification (when it is filed) Should Conseco request that any other publicly-filed document appearing on the docket of this multidistrict action or one of the member actions be posted on the website, Garden City Group shall post such document in addition to the other documents specified in this Order.
[AMENDED] NOTICE TO HOLDERS OF LIFETREND 3 & 4 POLICIES July 19, 2010 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: A proposed class action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned In re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Life Trend Insurance Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. M:10-cv-02124 SI (the "Proposed Conseco Class Action"). For a proposed nationwide class, Plaintiffs Cedric Brady, Charles Hovden, Marion Hovden, Eugene Kreps, John McNamara, Hisaji Sakai, and Bill W. McFarland (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek to represent certain persons in the United States who owned a Conseco LifeTrend 3 or 4 Policy (collectively "Policies"). Those Plaintiffs who reside in California also seek to represent a subclass of California residents who owned the Policies.
Plaintiffs allege that Conseco has violated and is continuing to violate the Policies by charging premiums where no premiums are due and by imposing expense charges and cost-of-insurance deductions that are higher than permitted under the terms of the Policies. Conseco denies Plaintiffs' allegations and contends that the premiums, expense charges and cost-of-insurance deductions are permitted under the Policies and a settlement it has reached with state regulators (the "Regulatory settlement") that has been approved by 42 states.
There has been no determination by the Court concerning the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations. In addition, the Court has not decided whether the case should be certified as a class action. Conseco is in the process of sending information about the Regulatory Settlement to you and other LifeTrend policyholders. Some of the benefits of the Regulatory Settlement will be conferred on you automatically, with no further action by you. But as the Regulatory Settlement and related documentation explain, if you wish to obtain certain optional benefits described in the Regulatory Settlement, you will have to execute a release form in favor of Conseco to receive those optional benefits. This could potentially prevent you from participating as a class member in the Proposed Conseco Class Action. You should therefore review the Regulatory Settlement carefully to ensure that you understand it and that you are satisfied with its terms.
You also may wish to consider the submissions that Plaintiffs and Conseco have filed in the U.S. District Court in connection with the Proposed Conseco Class Action, Case No. M:10-cv-02124 SI. You should keep in mind that the points of view expressed in those court filings are not rulings by the Court. The following selected documents are available at http://www.gardencitygroup.com/consecolifetrend.com: (1) the operative complaints and responses filed by Plaintiffs and Conseco in the Proposed Conseco Class Action; (2) the filings by Plaintiffs and Conseco concerning Plaintiffs' request for Class Certification; and (3) all orders issued by the Court in connection with Plaintiffs' class certification request. The website will be updated regularly.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.