Janice Schmidt and Judy A. Vann-Eubanks v. Protective Life Insurance Company and Standard Insurance

 Janice Schmidt and Judy A. Vann-Eubanks v. Protective Life Insurance Company and Standard Insurance Company, 8:21-cv-2065 (ED. CA 2021) was filed in 2021 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The plaintiffs, Janice Schmidt and Judy A. Vann-Eubanks, claim that the defendants, Protective Life Insurance Company and Standard Insurance Company (collectively “Protective Life”), failed to provide to certain notices required by the California Insurance Code life insurance policy holders. As a result, on behalf of themselves and others that are similarly situated, plaintiffs contend that Protective Life is required to honor life insurance policies that were improperly terminated prior to the appropriate notices being provided.

More specifically, California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 were designed to protect against life insurance policies from lapsing and went into effect on January 1, 2013. Section 10113.72 requires life insurance companies to give their policyholders an opportunity to designate at least one additional person to receive notice of lapse or termination of a policy for non-payment of a premium (“Offer to Designate Notice”).

The lawsuit claims Protective Life failed to comply with the Offer to Designate Notice for life insurance policies that were issued or delivered prior to January 1, 2013.  We understand that Protective Life did send some form of notice for new life insurance policies that went into effect after January 1, 2013. Because of these alleged violations, the lawsuit claims Protective Life breached its contract under life insurance policies issued or delivered prior to January 1, 2013, by not giving proper notice to policyholders, and that therefore those policies did not terminate and are still in effect. The lawsuit also claims that Protective Life’s breach of contract resulted in a denial of payment of benefits to beneficiaries who would have had claims for benefits under such policies.

As damages for Protective Life’s alleged violation of California law, the lawsuit seeks payment of full life insurance policy benefits due, pre-judgment interest, and other relief. The lawsuit also alleges Protective Life acted in bad faith under the applicable California laws.

In a class action, one or more individuals or entities, called Class Representatives (in this case, the plaintiffs named above), sued on behalf of others who have similar claims. All the other individuals or entities who have similar claims are putative “class members.” The motion for class certification has not yet been filed but is expected to be submitted later this year. 

The defendants are Protective Life Insurance Company and Standard Insurance Company

If you are the beneficiary of a life insurance policy that was issued by Protective Life prior to January 1, 2013 and the policy lapsed it is possible you are a member of the proposed class.

The plaintiff is represented by three law firms with extensive experience in insurance matters and complex litigation. They are:

Joseph M. Vanek 

John P. Bjork 

SPERLING & SLATER, LLC

55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60603

Christopher Pitoun 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 

Pasadena, CA 91101

David S. Klevatt 

KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500

Chicago, IL 60601 

You may receive additional information by contacting Joe Vanek via email at jvanek@sperling-law.com or by phone at (312) 224-1502.