Articles Tagged with class action

As we continue to learn about efforts to challenge proton therapy denials by groups such as the Proton Therapy Law Coalition, the fundamental question becomes: Will the insurers actually get the message and change their ways? A recent article suggests that even when a jury awards a large punitive damages figure against a health insurer, the carrier is likely not truly getting the message.

In November 2018, an Oklahoma jury returned a $25.5 million verdict against Aetna for improperly denying coverage for proton beam therapy, a treatment the company considered experimental. In the largest verdict for bad faith in U.S. history, the jury found that Aetna “recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly and act in good faith” and awarded punitive damages. During the course of deliberations, the jury specifically discussed “sending a message” to Aetna and “making a statement” so Aetna would reevaluate how it handles appeals and requests for coverage.

However, many large insurance companies, if state allows them to, carry their own liability insurance for just this occasion. It appears that about 20 states do not allow insurers to carry such liability coverage. But insurers are now turning to products sold by offshore insurers beyond the reach of state regulators. In other words, a lot of insurers are not directly paying for the punitive damages awarded against them. This undermines the importance and impact of large jury verdicts on effectuating changed insurer practices.

DowDuPont merger attempts to thwart DuPont’s promised pensions to employees that helped build the company.

Kantor & Kantor lawyers are representing U.S. retirees of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in a class action lawsuit after a series of corporate maneuvers taken by the company over the last four years left workers’ retirement benefits in jeopardy of failing. Elizabeth Hopkins and Susan Meter are representing the proposed class action along with co-counsel.

W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III, head of Beasley Allen’s Consumer Fraud Section, is one of the co-counsel working with our firm on the case. “Workers for DuPont have given decades of their working lives to the company to secure a pension for retirement that they were promised. These companies are now attempting to find ways to not only avoid funding the plan, but also are placing it in jeopardy of failing, leaving the workers with little or no pension after a lifetime of savings,” Miles said.

An amended complaint filed March 29 in Bafford, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., alleges that Northrop Grumman and its outside administrator, Hewitt Associates LLC (now known as Alight Solutions LLC), violated federal and state law by persistently overstating the pension benefits earned by certain Northrop Grumman employees.

Plaintiffs Stephen Bafford and Evelyn Wilson each worked for Northrop Grumman in the 1980’s and 1990’s, then worked for TRW Corporation, and then returned to Northrop Grumman employment when Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002. For years before each Plaintiff retired from Northrop Grumman, the Defendants provided them with pension benefit statements that showed their pensions being calculated on the basis of their highest three years of pay from their second period of Northrop Grumman employment.

But in early 2017, Defendants notified each Plaintiff that their pensions would be reduced by more than 50 percent because the pensions should have been calculated based on earnings from each Plaintiff’s first period of Northrop Grumman employment. Defendants further demanded repayment of pension amounts already paid to Plaintiffs, including more than $35,000 demanded from Ms. Wilson.

Contact Information