On Jan 18, 2021, three people with GLIC Choice 1 long-term care plans, Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin and Larry Huber, filed a Class Action Lawsuit (Class Action Complaint) against Genworth Long Term Care Insurance Company (namesake of former President George H.W. Bush), Inc. (parent company of the GLIC plans) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This case is similar to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Whole Health v. Pro-Choice. The lawsuit names as defendants…Genworth, Inc. (vice president & general manager for long-term care insurance), and its former directors…Mary Swartz and James C. Doyle, Jr. (who are former employees of Genworth). These companies were ordered by the court to settle the lawsuit.
According to the complaint, Genworth failed to make required payments to class members on accounts of their GLIC policies and did not respond to notice of default or any other formal notice of possible claims. The lawsuit further alleges that Genworth intentionally violated the provision of the state long-term care insurance policy by not paying the required premium on time… thereby failing to comply with the state’s requirements for registration of the plan. In addition, the policyholders argue that they are owed a substantial amount of damages, due to the negligence of the company, and that the settlement administrator and the insurer have both a duty of care and a breach of contract claim against them. On March 5, the case was moved to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
On April 4, the parties filed final written exhibits to support their positions in this case. According to the plaintiffs, Genworth has until June 30 to file its answer to the complaint by submitting proposed answers. If the company fails to do so by this date, plaintiffs must file their own lawsuit against them, to move forward in the case. In their answer, Genworth states that it “filed and filed the complaint on behalf of itself, its insured persons and their spouses, or their individual beneficiaries in its sole discretion.” Further, the company contends that it is “disputed” that it has neglected its obligations to class members.
At the close of plaintiffs’ case, Genworth submitted written answers to the complaint, answering some questions regarding whether or not the class should be allowed to pursue a claim for payment of premiums. It is noted that the company’s answers are “not opposed” and that they believe “the lawsuit is premature and improper.” The company further explained that it “does not undertake” settlement discussions with potential class members and that it “does not make any express or implied promise of settlement of the lawsuit.” Finally, it is stated that if the case were to proceed to a settlement, it “certainly would” become more difficult to settle due to the uncertainties inherent in such a case.
The plaintiffs have one more chance to receive final approval for their lawsuit at the conclusion of the case. Genworth has requested that the court issue a final order granting its motion for summary judgment. A summary judgment is issued when a plaintiff and their attorney submit “an answer” as to whether or not their complaint has any reasonable likelihood of success. If the answer is “yes” the court issues its final approval of the settlement agreement and enters an order approving the settlement.
Plaintiffs have a right to litigate their breach contract and other claims against genworth life insurance. However, they have a very limited time during which they can pursue such claims against the company. The statute of limitations period begins to run from the date of service of the complaint, and Genworth Life Insurance Co. must either accept or deny the complaint within three years after the date of service. The company is also required to provide discovery and follow-up discovery to plaintiffs. Once plaintiffs have obtained their final approval, they may submit their final arguments and counter-defendants to the judge. If the company does not enter into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs within three years, then plaintiffs lose their right to file additional claims against the company.