23 total
Class action certification denied as there was no basis in fact for the alleged breach of contract regarding insurance fee increases.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against a life insurance company, alleging breach of contract regarding increases to the cost of insurance and administrative fees for universal life insurance policies.
The court had previously adjourned the motion to allow for further evidence on how the fees were calculated.
After reviewing actuarial evidence, the court found that the insurer had set and adjusted the fees in accordance with the policy terms and industry practice.
Concluding there was no basis in fact for the breach of contract claims, the court dismissed the certification motion in its entirety.
Tax Motion allowed in part
The defendants, a consortium of insurers, brought a motion to clarify TD Bank's discovery obligations regarding documents subject to solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement/mediation privilege.
TD Bank was seeking indemnity under fidelity policies for amounts paid to settle 19 underlying lawsuits related to a Ponzi scheme.
The court ruled that TD Bank had not implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege through its pleadings.
It also found that litigation privilege for documents created for the underlying litigation was not lost upon settlement, given the close connection to the current coverage dispute.
However, the court determined that TD Bank could not assert settlement privilege over documents related to the underlying settlements, as these were crucial for the insurers to assess the reasonableness and allocation of damages for coverage purposes.
Motion to compel production denied; comity extended to US laws prohibiting disclosure of banking and regulatory documents.
The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce three categories of documents in its affidavit of documents.
The plaintiff argued that it was prohibited from producing these documents by United States regulatory and privacy laws, as well as US court protective orders.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the foreign laws and orders were entitled to comity.
The court held that the plaintiff should not be compelled to violate foreign laws and directed the defendants to seek production or consent directly from the relevant US authorities or courts, with the plaintiff's reasonable cooperation.