Ezell v. Lexington Insurance Company, 061119 FED1, 18-2064
|Opinion Judge:||SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.|
|Party Name:||NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY; AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY...|
|Attorney:||Craig R. Spiegel, with whom Steve W. Berman was on briefs, for appellants. Adam H. Offenhartz, with whom James L. Hallowell, Nancy E. Hart, Peter M. Wade, William T. Hogan III, and Nolan J. Mitchell were on brief, for appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter, Associate Justice, and Kayatta, Circuit Judge.|
|Case Date:||June 11, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Craig R. Spiegel, with whom Steve W. Berman was on briefs, for appellants.
Adam H. Offenhartz, with whom James L. Hallowell, Nancy E. Hart, Peter M. Wade, William T. Hogan III, and Nolan J. Mitchell were on brief, for appellees.
Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter, [*] Associate Justice, and Kayatta, Circuit Judge.
SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.
Appellants Norma Ezell, Leonard Whitley, and Erica Biddings entered into structured settlement agreements with Lexington Insurance Company. By the terms of their settlements, appellants agreed not to pursue their wrongful death and personal injury claims against parties insured by Lexington. In exchange, Lexington agreed that appellants would receive specific periodic payments from annuities that Lexington would purchase. Years after these agreements took effect, appellants accused Lexington and other affiliated insurers of misrepresenting the amount appellants would receive from the settlements. Appellants brought this putative class action in federal court, alleging that Lexington and other insurers made fraudulent misrepresentations to appellants, actionable at common law, and engaged in a scheme to defraud appellants in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. Appellants now challenge the District Court's dismissal of their claims as raised for a second time under an amended complaint. We affirm.
We begin with the language of the relevant settlement documents that are part of the record on appeal. One settlement agreement...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP