Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

885 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2018)

Words & Phrases

Consumer Fraud Act

Trial Judge

Thomas M. Durkin

Appellate Judge

Wood

Holding

Class action stated viable causes of action for common law fraud and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act based on arguably misleading language in long-term care brochure with respect to defendant’s treatment for post-age 65 premiums under reduced pay option.

Fact Summary

At age 56, Margery Newman purchased a long-term care insurance plan from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). She opted for one of MetLife’s non-standard options for paying her insurance premiums; MetLife called the method she selected “Reduced-Pay at 65.” When Newman was 67 years old, she was startled to discover that MetLife that year more than doubled her insurance premium. MetLife insists that the increase is consistent with Newman’s insurance policy, including its Reduced-Pay at 65 feature. Newman was unpersuaded and brought this action to vindicate her position. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. We conclude, however, that Newman is entitled to relief on her contract claim and that dismissal of the remaining claims was premature. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Back