Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 16 July 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 01-1025.,01-1025. |
Citation | 667 N.W.2d 36 |
Parties | Cherri Lea VOS, Rita C. Anderson and Quentin V. Anderson, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and FBL Financial Group, Inc., Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Marc A. Humphrey of Humphrey Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, Angela M. Trombly of Law Offices of Angela M. Trombly, East Longmeadow, Mass., Richard A. Lockridge and Katheryn A. Andresen of Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minn., William R. Weinstein, Richard Bemporad, and Vincent Briganti of Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., and Julian K. Melmed of Law Offices of Julian K. Melmed, Stamford, Conn., for appellants.
CeCelia Ibson Wagner and Janean A. Schaefer Denhart of Smith, Schneider, Stiles & Serangeli, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, Cherri Lea Vos, Rita C. Anderson, and Quentin V. Anderson, appeal a district court ruling decertifying their class action against Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company and FBL Financial Group, Inc. (collectively "Farm Bureau"). Because we find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling, we affirm.
A. The allegations. On February 1, 1999, Vos and her parents, the Andersons, filed a class action against Farm Bureau. The plaintiffs alleged that from January 1, 1982 through at least December 31, 1996, Farm Bureau engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices in connection with the sale of whole life and universal life polices. The deceptive conduct as alleged in the petition involved:
The petition further alleged the following additional facts. On May 17, 1988, Farm Bureau agent Merrill Perry met with plaintiffs at their home to "induce them into purchasing an additional `fully paid up' life insurance policy" for Cherri Vos. Perry used policy illustrations and calculations provided by Farm Bureau to represent to the plaintiffs this "great deal" would allow them to obtain a fully paid up $50,000 special whole life policy on Cherri without making further premium payments on the policy. Perry convinced Rita to cash in a $2,000 paid up life insurance policy she owned through another insurance company and apply the proceeds to the policy for Cherri. In addition, Perry persuaded Quentin to write a check in payment of the additional amount necessary to make the new policy "fully paid up." In December 1998, Farm Bureau offered to recognize Cherri's policy as "fully paid up," provided she agree to accept a reduced paid up policy in the amount of $20,710.50.
The petition alleged the following common questions of law and fact predominated over individual questions:
(1) Whether Farm Bureau, through its national general agency system and sales force of agents, engaged in deceptive acts and practices in connection with the sale of whole life and/or universal life insurance policies; and
(2) Whether Farm Bureau, through its national general agency system and sales force of agents, breached its contracts with plaintiffs and the members of the class during the class period by requiring additional out-of-pocket payments on whole and/or universal life insurance policies purchased by plaintiffs and members of the class beyond the amounts or dates represented.
The petition asserted five separate claims against the defendants: breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants answered and asserted several affirmative defenses. One of those affirmative defenses is relevant to this appeal: There are no common questions of law or fact which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
Following a hearing in which the district court heard arguments on the motion, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on February 14, 2000. In ruling on the motion, the court considered the petition and some thirty exhibits attached to the plaintiffs' memorandum. In its ruling, the court noted that "the class certification order is always subject to modification should later developments during the course of the trial so require." The district court defined the class as follows:
All persons who have or had an ownership interest in one or more whole life and/or universal life policies issued during the period of January 1, 1982 through December 31, 1996 (the "class period") that was sold by Farm Bureau through its exclusive agency force, and to whom it was represented that premiums would "vanish" and/or that a policy would be "fully paid up" and/or that no additional costs would be incurred in excess of the specified number or amount of payments or years. Excluded from the class are defendants, any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of defendants, any entity in which defendants have a controlling interest, and the officers, directors, agents, employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors, and assigns of such excluded person or entity.
C. Discovery. Discovery commenced in June 1999 and continued for nearly two years during which Farm Bureau produced over 60,000 pages of documents and the plaintiffs produced over 100 documents. The plaintiffs as well as several of Farm Bureau's present and former employees and senior management officials were deposed. The documentation Farm Bureau produced included sample life insurance contracts, sample illustrations used by Farm Bureau agents, minutes of board of directors' meetings concerning interest rates and dividend declarations, brochures and promotional materials, training manuals, rate manuals, complaint files, Farm Bureau's SEC Prospectus regarding its public offering, actuarial material regarding the policies in question, organizational charts, and affidavits. The documentation the plaintiffs produced included the plaintiffs' life insurance policies and attendant documents, copies of checks regarding premium payments, and documents regarding the plaintiffs' consumer complaint.
The discovery reveals the following information about the type of policy at issue and the marketing scheme Farm Bureau used to sell it.
1. The policies. The plaintiffs purchased identical policies from Farm Bureau: "Special Whole Life Participating." Quentin and Rita Anderson purchased their policies in 1985. The allegations of the petition are limited to the facts surrounding the purchase of Cherri's policy, which was purchased in 1988. Therefore the facts surrounding the purchase of Rita's and Quentin's policy are relevant only to the extent they are included as class members.
The front page of the policy contained the following:
(Emphasis added.)
The top of the table-of-contents page informed the policyholder,
The "Policy Data Sheet" is found at page three of the policy. It lists the "annual premium" and states that the "period payable" is "lifetime." The policy data sheet also lists the guaranteed cash value and paid-up insurance the policy will generate or carry at any given point in time.
The policy contained the following provisions related to premiums and dividends, and the following general provisions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armstrong v. AMERICAN PALLET LEASING INC.
...relationship; and (2) that the actions taken by the fiduciary were not beneficial to his or her interests.'" Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 667 N.W.2d 36, 52 (Iowa 2003) (quoting Rothwell v. Chubb Life Ins. Co., 191 F.R.D. 25, 32 (D.N.H.1998)); see Kurth v. Van Horn, 380 N.W.2d 693 (Iowa......
-
Merriam v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts., 4:07-cv-130.
...show not only the expectations, but also that they were relied upon by the insurance purchaser in deciding to buy the policy." 667 N.W.2d 36, 50 (Iowa 2003). Here, the only expectation that Merriam harbored was his claimed belief that "coverage would protect me anytime I was outside my truc......
-
Baker v. Autos, Inc.
...Civil Rule 23 nevertheless may aid in our application of similar provisions in North Dakota Civil Rule 23. See Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 667 N.W.2d 36, 44 (Iowa 2003) ; Vignaroli v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 360 N.W.2d 741, 743 (Iowa 1985) (Uniform Class Action Rule may be interpreted by ......
-
Cotton v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...leaves open the question whether the plaintiff's claims are nevertheless defensively preempted. 15. See e.g., Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 667 N.W.2d 36, 46-55 (Iowa 2003) (upholding the denial of class certification of vanishing premium claims because the state-law misrepresentation c......
-
Class Action Assertion of Indirect Purchaser Claims
...cases are litigated in federal court. 3 1. See, e.g., Richmond v. Dart Indus., 629 P.2d 23, 28 (Cal. 1981); Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins., 667 N.W.2d 36, 44 (Iowa 2003); In re S.D. Microsoft Antitrust Litig., 657 N.W.2d 668, 672 n.4 (S.D. 2003); Steele v. Sec. Benefit & Life Ins., 602 P.2d 1......
-
Appendix A. Survey Of State Indirect Purchaser Jurisprudence and Legislation
...as a matter of law.” 136 129. Id. at 1.263. 130. Id. at 1.263(1). 131. Id. at 1.263(1)(e), (k). 132 . Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins., 667 N.W.2d 36, 45 (Iowa 2003) (citing Vignaroli v. Blue Cross of Iowa, 360 N.W.2d 741, 744-45 (Iowa 1985)). 133 . 696 N.W. 2d 318 (Iowa 2005). 134. Comes II, 6......
-
Table of cases
...Ltd.,O.J. No. 237 (2001), aff’d , O.J. No. 1400 (Div. Ct.) (2002), aff’d , O.J. No. 868 (C.A.) (2003), 378 Vos v. Farm Bureau Life Ins., 667 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2003), 193, 417 Voyager Guar. Ins., Ex parte, 669 So. 2d 198 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995), 401 Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare/Wyeth Soi......