MetLife Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Failure to Pay Life Insurance Claim

Last year, a California resident filed a MetLife class action lawsuit alleging that the company wrongfully cancelled her husband’s policy for nonpayment.

Life insurance companies may cancel a life insurance policy for a variety of reasons including fraud and non-payment. Consumers may be able to stop their policy cancellation by contacting the insurer to negotiate payment or new terms.

Although it is not illegal for insurers to cancel an insurance policy for nonpayment, a 2013 California state law requires insurers to follow certain procedures which protect consumers from wrongful cancellation. Insurers must provide a 60-day grace period for late payments, 30 days prior written notice before terminating a policy, and a yearly opportunity to designate a third party to receive important information.

A MetLife class action lawsuit claims that the company wrongfully cancels life insurance policies for non-payment in violation of this California law.

MetLife Class Action Lawsuit Allegations

Plaintiff Susan Pitt claims that her husband Michael Pitt had a life insurance policy with MetLife before his death in May 2018. According to the MetLife class action, the insurance company wrongfully cancelled Mr. Pitt’s life insurance policy in 2016.

In January 2016, Mr. Pitt allegedly missed a payment on his life insurance policy. Mrs. Pitt reportedly believes that this missed payment was unintentional and irregular considering his 12 years of consistent premium payments. In the next month, the couple was allegedly informed that MetLife had terminated Mr. Pitt’s life insurance policy.

Mr. Pitt allegedly tried repeatedly to get his policy reinstated, but was denied by the company. Mrs. Pitt says having his policy reinstated was the only option because Mr. Pitt was allegedly suffering from a progressive medical condition which would inevitably take his life. His condition reportedly made it impossible for him to secure replacement coverage, Mrs. Pitt claims.

Now that Mr. Pitt has passed his widow argues that the life insurance policy she would have benefited from was wrongly terminated.

Mrs. Pitt argues that MetLife failed to follow California law when terminating the policy. The company allegedly failed to comply with all of the rules set forth by the California insurance law, including the 60 day grace period, 30 days prior written notice, and the yearly alternative notice recipient opportunity.

“MetLife purportedly terminated the policy half way through the mandatory 60-day grace period,” the MetLife class action alleges. “This termination not only violated the terms of the California Insurance Code, but also constituted a material breach of the contract.”

In August 2018, Mrs. Pitt filed a claim with MetLife. She argues that her claim, which was swiftly denied, should be paid since MetLife failed to follow the law when terminating the policy.

“For all of those reasons, the Policy remained and remains in force, and MetLife was and is in material breach of contract, excusing any obligation to tender premiums,” the MetLife policy class action lawsuit argues.

Mrs. Pitt seeks to represent a Class of owners or beneficiaries of a MetLife life insurance policy who had their policy cancelled unlawfully after Jan. 1, 2013.

The MetLife Class Action Lawsuit is Pitt v. MetLife Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06609-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Join a Free California Life Insurance Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Investigation

If you believe a life insurance company wrongfully cancelled your life insurance policy due to nonpayment of premium, or if you were the beneficiary of a life insurance policy that was terminated or for which a claim was denied for non-payment of premium, you may have a claim.

NOTE: Statutes of limitation may apply, so hurry! 

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.