Contingencies
Litigation
The Company is a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience of the Company in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.
Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.
The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at December 31, 2013. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.
Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made
For some of the matters disclosed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of December 31, 2013, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be $0 to $520 million.
Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made
For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.
Asbestos-Related Claims
MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers’ compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the period from the 1920’s through approximately the 1950’s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.
Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC’s defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries; (iv) plaintiffs’ exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC’s motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
The approximate total number of asbestos personal injury claims pending against MLIC as of the dates indicated, the approximate number of new claims during the years ended on those dates and the approximate total settlement payments made to resolve asbestos personal injury claims at or during those years are set forth in the following table:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| December 31, |
| 2013 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
| (In millions, except number of claims) |
Asbestos personal injury claims at year end | 67,983 |
| | 65,812 |
| | 66,747 |
|
Number of new claims during the year | 5,898 |
| | 5,303 |
| | 4,972 |
|
Settlement payments during the year (1) | $ | 37.0 |
| | $ | 36.4 |
| | $ | 34.2 |
|
______________
| |
(1) | Settlement payments represent payments made by MLIC during the year in connection with settlements made in that year and in prior years. Amounts do not include MLIC’s attorneys’ fees and expenses and do not reflect amounts received from insurance carriers. |
The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.
The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company’s judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.
The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC’s recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC’s analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.
MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through December 31, 2013. The frequency of severe claims relating to asbestos has not declined as expected, and MLIC has reflected this in its provisions. Accordingly, MLIC increased its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims from $417 million to $572 million at December 31, 2013.
Regulatory Matters
The Company receives and responds to subpoenas or other inquiries from state regulators, including state insurance commissioners; state attorneys general or other state governmental authorities; federal regulators, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); federal governmental authorities, including congressional committees; and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) seeking a broad range of information. The issues involved in information requests and regulatory matters vary widely. The Company cooperates in these inquiries.
Mortgage Regulatory and Law Enforcement Authorities’ Inquiries
MetLife, through its affiliate, MetLife Bank, was engaged in the origination, sale and servicing of forward and reverse residential mortgage loans since 2008. In 2012, MetLife Bank exited the business of originating residential mortgage loans. In 2012 and 2013, MetLife Bank sold its residential mortgage servicing portfolios, and in 2013 wound down its mortgage servicing business. See Note 3 for information regarding the MetLife Bank Divestiture. In August 2013, MetLife Bank merged with and into MLHL, its former subsidiary, with MLHL as the surviving non-bank entity.
On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) entered into a consent order with MetLife Bank (the “OCC consent order”). The OCC consent order required an independent review of foreclosure practices and set forth new residential mortgage servicing standards. In February 2013, MetLife Bank entered into an agreement with the OCC to amend the OCC consent order, and paid approximately $46 million to settle its obligations and end the foreclosure review. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board entered into a consent order with MetLife, Inc. in 2011 (the “Federal Reserve Board consent order”), to enhance its supervision of the mortgage servicing activities of MetLife Bank. On August 6, 2012, the Federal Reserve Board and MetLife, Inc. entered into an Order of Assessment of a Civil Monetary Penalty Issued Upon Consent that imposes a penalty of up to $3.2 million for the alleged deficiencies in MetLife, Inc.’s oversight of MetLife Bank’s servicing of residential mortgage loans and processing foreclosures that were the subject of the Federal Reserve Board consent order.
In May 2013, MetLife Bank received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requiring production of documents relating to MetLife Bank’s payment of certain foreclosure-related expenses to law firms and business entities affiliated with law firms and relating to MetLife Bank’s supervision of such payments, including expenses submitted to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for reimbursement. It is possible that various state or federal regulatory and law enforcement authorities may seek monetary penalties from MLHL relating to foreclosure practices.
MetLife Bank has also responded to a subpoena issued by the Department of Financial Services regarding hazard insurance and flood insurance that MetLife Bank obtained to protect the lienholder’s interest when the borrower’s insurance has lapsed.
In April and May 2012, MetLife Bank received two subpoenas issued by the Office of Inspector General for HUD regarding Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured loans. In June and September 2012, MetLife Bank received two Civil Investigative Demands that the U.S. Department of Justice issued as part of a False Claims Act investigation of allegations that MetLife Bank had improperly originated and/or underwritten loans insured by the FHA. MetLife Bank has met with the U.S. Department of Justice to discuss the allegations and possible resolution of the FHA False Claims Act investigation. The Company has included what it currently believes to be the probable and estimable amount of such loss in the Company’s consolidated financial statements and is continuing to investigate matters raised during the meeting.
The consent decrees, as well as the inquiries or investigations referred to above, could adversely affect MetLife’s reputation or result in significant fines, penalties, equitable remedies or other enforcement actions, and result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations or other litigation. The MetLife Bank Divestiture may not relieve MetLife from complying with the consent decrees, or protect it from inquiries and investigations relating to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, or any fines, penalties, equitable remedies or enforcement actions that may result, the costs of responding to any such governmental investigations, or other litigation. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by these regulatory matters.
In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida
In July 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) advised MLIC that it believed payments were due under two settlement agreements, known as “Administrative Orders on Consent,” that New England Mutual Life Insurance Company (“New England Mutual”) signed in 1989 and 1992 with respect to the cleanup of a Superfund site in Florida (the “Chemform Site”). The EPA originally contacted MLIC (as successor to New England Mutual) and a third party in 2001, and advised that they owed additional clean-up costs for the Chemform Site. The matter was not resolved at that time. The EPA is requesting payment of an amount under $1 million from MLIC and such third party for past costs and an additional amount for future environmental testing costs at the Chemform Site. In June 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party have agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform site. The Company estimates that its costs for the environmental testing will not exceed $100,000. The June 2012 Administrative Order on Consent does not resolve the EPA’s claim for past clean-up costs. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter will not exceed $1 million.
Metco Site, Hicksville, Nassau County, New York
On February 22, 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“Department of Environmental Conservation”) issued a notice to MLIC, as purported successor in interest to New England Mutual, that it is a potentially responsible party with respect to hazardous substances and hazardous waste located on a property that New England Mutual owned for a time in 1978. MLIC has responded to the Department of Environmental Conservation and asserted that it is not a potentially responsible party under the law.
New York Licensing Inquiry
The Company continues to work with the Department of Financial Services and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office regarding their inquiries into whether from January 2007 to the present American Life and DelAm conducted insurance business in New York without a license and whether representatives acting on behalf of these companies solicited, sold or negotiated insurance products in New York without a license. Additionally, the New York State Office of the Attorney General Taxpayer Protection Bureau is inquiring concerning American Life and DelAm’s New York State premium and franchise tax filings. The Company is cooperating with all regulators.
Sales Practices Regulatory Matters
Regulatory authorities in a small number of states and FINRA, and occasionally the SEC, have had investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products by MLIC, MICC, New England Life Insurance Company (“NELICO”) and General American Life Insurance Company (“GALIC”), and broker-dealers MetLife Securities, Inc. and New England Securities Corporation. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for these sales practices-related investigations or inquiries.
Unclaimed Property Litigation and Inquiries
In 2012, the Company reached agreements with representatives of the U.S. jurisdictions that were conducting audits of MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws, and with state insurance regulators directly involved in a multistate targeted market conduct examination relating to claim-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a $52 million after tax charge for the multistate examination payment and the expected acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements. On September 20, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action against MLIC in West Virginia state court (West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12-C-295) alleging that the Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On November 14, 2012, November 21, 2012, December 28, 2012, and January 9, 2013, the Treasurer filed substantially identical suits against MLI-USA, NELICO, MICC and GALIC, respectively. On December 30, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss all of the West Virginia Treasurer’s actions. The Treasurer has filed a notice to appeal the dismissal order. At least one other jurisdiction is pursuing a market conduct examination concerning compliance with unclaimed property statutes. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar examinations, audits, or lawsuits and that such actions may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and/or further changes to the Company’s procedures. The Company is not currently able to estimate these additional possible costs.
Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC on behalf of the State of Florida v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (Cir. Ct. Leon County, FL, filed October 27, 2010)
Alleging that MetLife, Inc. and another company have violated the Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property law by failing to escheat to Florida benefits of 9,022 life insurance contracts, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC (“the Relator”) has brought an action under the Florida False Claims Act seeking to recover damages on behalf of Florida. The action had been sealed by court order until December 17, 2012. The Relator alleges that the aggregate damages attributable to MetLife, Inc., including statutory damages and treble damages, are $767 million. The Relator also bases its damage calculation in part on its assumption that the average face amount of the subject policies is $120,000. MetLife, Inc. strongly disputes this assumption, the Relator’s alleged damages amounts, and other allegations in the complaint. On December 14, 2012, the Florida Attorney General apprised the court that the State of Florida declined to intervene in the action and noted that the allegations in the complaint “. . . are very similar (if not identical) to those raised in regulatory investigations of the defendants that predated the filing of the action” and that those regulatory investigations have been resolved. On August 20, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. The Relator has appealed the dismissal.
City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012)
Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012)
Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.’s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
Derivative Actions and Demands
Seeking to sue derivatively on behalf of MetLife, Inc., four shareholders commenced separate actions against members of the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary and other duties to the Company. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to ensure that the Company complied with state unclaimed property laws and to ensure that the Company accurately reported its earnings. Plaintiffs allege that because of the defendant’s breaches of duty, MetLife, Inc. has incurred damage to its reputation and has suffered other unspecified damages. The two state court actions (Fishbaum v. Kandarian, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed January 27, 2012); Batchelder v. Burwell, et al. (Sup. Ct., New York County, filed March 6, 2012)), have been consolidated under the caption In re: MetLife Shareholder Derivative Action. On January 22, 2014, the state court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs had not established that their failure to make the required pre-suit demand to the Board of Directors should be excused. Plaintiffs have moved for leave to reargue the order dismissing its claim or for leave to file an amended complaint. The two actions filed in federal court (Mallon v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed March 28, 2012); and Martino v. Kandarian, et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed April 19, 2012)) have been consolidated and stayed pending further order of the court. The defendants intend to continue to defend these actions vigorously. A fifth shareholder, Western Pennsylvania Electrical Workers Pension Fund, has written to the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors demanding that MetLife, Inc. take action against current and former Board members, executive officers, and MetLife, Inc.’ s independent auditor, for similar alleged breaches of duty with respect to the Company’s compliance with unclaimed property laws and financial disclosures. The MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee to investigate these allegations. On September 24, 2012, counsel for the Special Committee apprised this shareholder that the Board of Directors had reviewed the issues and rejected the demand.
Total Control Accounts Litigation
MLIC is a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts (“TCA”), as a settlement option for death benefits.
Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011)
These putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC’s use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Other Litigation
Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July 22, 2011)
This lawsuit was filed by 45 retired General Motors (“GM”) employees against MLIC and the amended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair trade practices, and ERISA claims based upon GM’s 2009 reduction of the employees’ life insurance coverage under GM’s ERISA-governed plan. The complaint includes a count seeking class action status. MLIC is the insurer of GM’s group life insurance plan and administers claims under the plan. According to the complaint, MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a “written guarantee” that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not be reduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, the district court granted MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action on September 12, 2013.
McGuire v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (E.D. Mich., filed February 22, 2012)
This lawsuit was filed by the fiduciary for the Union Carbide Employees’ Pension Plan and alleges that MLIC, which issued annuity contracts to fund some of the benefits the Plan provides, engaged in transactions that ERISA prohibits and violated duties under ERISA and federal common law by determining that no dividends were payable with respect to the contracts from and after 1999. On September 26, 2012, the court denied MLIC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial has been scheduled for June 2014.
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim
In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC’s Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for “market conduct claims” related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC’s Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without naming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.
C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013). Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013).
Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). In the C-Mart case, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of approximately 36,000 persons in Missouri who, during the period of August 7, 2012 through September 6, 2012, were allegedly sent an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set for April 2014. In the Cadenasso case, plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class of persons (except for Missouri residents) who were allegedly sent millions of unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. In both cases, plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages under the TCPA in the amount of $500 for each violation and to have such damages trebled.
Sales Practices Claims
Over the past several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.
Summary
Putative or certified class action litigation and other litigation and claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, mortgage lending bank, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.
It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.
