Toulon v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 14 December 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1510,16-1510 |
Citation | 877 F.3d 725 |
Parties | Sophie P. TOULON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Thomas C. Cronin, Robert R. Duncan, Attorneys, CRONIN & COMPANY, LTD, Chicago, IL, Frank H. Tomlinson, Attorney, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brent Robert Austin, Richard J. Street, Michael L. McCluggage, I, Attorneys, EIMER STAHL LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before Rovner, Williams, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
In September 2002, Sophie Toulon applied for a Preferred Solution long-term care insurance policy (the Policy) issued by Continental Casualty Company. Continental provided Toulon with a "Long Term Care Insurance Personal Worksheet," along with the application, to help her determine whether the Policy would work for her, given her financial circumstances. The Worksheet discussed Continental's right to increase premiums and how such increases had been applied in the past. Toulon decided not to fill out the Worksheet but she signed it and submitted it with her application.
Toulon's Policy became effective on July 15, 2002 and it stated that although Continental could not cancel the Policy as long as each premium was paid on time, Continental could make changes to the premium rates. But there was a "10-Year Rate Guarantee Rider" which stated that premiums would not be increased during the first ten years after the effective coverage date. In September 2013, more than eleven years after the 2002 coverage date, Continental raised Toulon's premiums by 76.5%.
In January 2015, Toulon sued Continental, on behalf of herself and all others who had purchased the Policy, claiming that Continental had engaged in a scheme to lure elderly people into purchasing the Policy by offering artificially low premiums for the first ten years and by not disclosing that Continental would raise its rates substantially just at the time when elderly insureds would likely need to make claims. Toulon amended her complaint twice, ultimately asserting claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omissions, unjust enrichment, and violation of the consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Continental moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the Complaint) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the district court granted the motion.
Toulon now appeals from the district court's dismissal of the Complaint. We agree with the district court that Toulon failed to state claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, because she did not identify a false statement made by Continental, or for fraudulent omission, because Continental did not owe Toulon a duty to disclose. The district court also properly dismissed Toulon's claim for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA), which as an Illinois resident was the only consumer fraud statute applicable to Toulon, since she did not identify (1) a deceptive practice engaged in by Continental, (2) a material omission of Continental, or (3) an unfair practice. Finally, the district court was correct to dismiss the count alleging unjust enrichment because Toulon's claims of fraud and statutory violation, upon which her unjust enrichment claim was based, were legally insufficient and an express contract governed the parties' relationship.
Instead of completing the Worksheet, Toulon checked off and signed a statement at the bottom of the Worksheet, which said, "I choose not to complete this information." Immediately below this, her husband and insurance agent, Gregory Toulon, indicated that he "explained to the applicant the importance of completing this information."
Continental issued the Policy to Toulon, with an effective date of coverage of July 15, 2002 and it stated in large bold letters on the first page, "GUARANTEED RENEWABLE FOR LIFE/PREMIUMS SUBJECT TO CHANGE." Under this heading, the Policy stated that Continental cannot cancel or refuse to renew the Policy and cannot change the Policy without the policyholder's consent. It then provided, The policy had a "10-Year Rate Guarantee Amendment Rider" attached, which amended the "Premiums Subject to Change" provision by stating: "In no event will the premium rate increase during the initial 10 years after your Effective Date of Coverage." In 2013, eleven years after her policy was issued and after her ten-year rate guarantee rider had expired, Continental increased premiums for the Policy by 76.5% to $3,140.18 annually.
A. District Court Proceedings
On January 8, 2015, Toulon filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Continental falsely represented the likelihood and magnitude of premium increases on the Policy. The complaint stated that she was bringing the action "on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated." Toulon asserted that the district court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), as modified by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), "because at least one member of the [c]lass is a citizen of a different state than the defendant, there are more than 100 members of the [c]lass, and upon information and belief the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs."
Toulon filed her First Amended Complaint, which the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Toulon then filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 11, 2015, alleging four causes of action: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation, (2) fraudulent omissions, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) violations of the consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The Complaint alleged that Toulon was 68 years old at the time that she applied for the Policy and her highest level of education was high school. Toulon also stated that she had no knowledge related to long-term care insurance at the time she purchased the Policy and did not know what factors, variables and assumptions determined the initial premiums.
According to Toulon, Continental "knew that it would have to drastically increase premiums in the future and that disclosing the need to do so would scare away customers." So, Toulon maintains, Continental devised a scheme to offer the Policy with artificially lowered premiums and rate-stabilizing riders, without disclosing that it would implement significant premium rate increases once the rate-stabilization period ended.
Continental filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Toulon challenges the district court's dismissal and maintains that the Complaint adequately states claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omissions, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).1
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Although Toulon and Continental are both citizens of Illinois, because CAFA requires only "minimal diversity," jurisdiction was appropriate in the district court as long as at least one person who would be a member of the class Toulon sought to represent was a citizen of a state other than Illinois.
She further alleged that "[t]he ‘Preferred Solution’ policies were approved to be sold in at least 32 states," that "[t]he Policy was sold in Illinois, as well as throughout the country," and that "the members of the Class are geographically dispersed throughout the United States." Based on these allegations, Toulon concluded that "at least one member of the Class is a citizen of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flores v. United Airlines
...oppressive or unscrupulous, which is to say offering a choice is not unfair for purposes of the ICFA. See Toulon v. Continental Casualty Co. , 877 F.3d 725, 741 (7th Cir. 2017) ("If [plaintiff] did not want to buy the Policy, she could have looked elsewhere to determine if other companies w......
-
BCBSM, Inc. v. Walgreen Co.
...recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Toulon v. Cont'l Cas. Co. , 877 F.3d 725, 734 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). The Seventh Circuit has interpreted this plausibility standard to mean t......
-
Melnick v. Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc.
...to state a claim under ICFA, her claim for unjust enrichment failed as well. See id. at 1119-20 (citing Toulon v. Continental Cas. Co. , 877 F.3d 725, 741-42 (7th Cir. 2017) ). In the Seventh Circuit case, the court, after noting that unjust enrichment does not constitute an independent cau......
-
Squires-Cannon v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty.
...for identifying a special trust relationship is extremely similar to that of a fiduciary relationship." Toulon v. Continental Casualty Co. , 877 F.3d 725, 738 (7th Cir. 2017), quoting Wigod , 673 F.3d at 571. "[A]symmetric information alone does not show the degree of dominance needed to es......