T-Mobile Reaches Settlement Over Cellphone Insurance Plans

T-Mobile and 1.4 million Class Members have reportedly reached a false advertising class action lawsuit settlement that would resolve allegations that the cellphone company misrepresented Asurion Corp. cellphone insurance plans.

A panel of judges for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the T-Mobile class action lawsuit to allow the district court to review the proposed settlement.

Appellate Judges William A. Fletcher, Richard Paez and Marsha S. Berzon stated in their order Tuesday: “We have reviewed the stipulation of the parties and construe it as a motion for a limited remand. As such, the motion is granted. This appeal is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the district court to consider whether it is willing to approve the parties’ proposed settlement. If the parties inform this Court that the settlement will be approved, the appeal will be dismissed.”

Plaintiff Wineesa Cole filed the T-Mobile cellphone insurance class action lawsuit more than a decade ago over claims that an insurance program she paid for in 2004 was no longer valid when she allegedly needed to use it. Cole says that when she purchased the cellphone insurance program, she was told that if she paid $3.99 a month, the insurance would cover the cost of her phone if it was lost or stolen as long as she paid a $35 deductible.

However, the T-Mobile insurance class action lawsuit claims that when plaintiff Cole lost her phone the following year, Asurion informed her that the terms of her plan had changed. According to the class action lawsuit, Cole was told she would now have to pay a $110 deductible or her cellphone could be replaced with a refurbished phone that could be worth less than the deductible.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez certified the T-Mobile cellphone class action lawsuit in April 2010.

In July 2015, Cole’s attorneys encouraged the panel of appellate judges to overturn U.S. District Judge Manuel Real’s order granting T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff’s counsel claimed that because T-Mobile’s arbitration agreement forces cellphone customers to non-binding arbitration, it is not covered by the Federal Arbitration Act and therefore cannot impose a waiver of class action rights.

T-Mobile’s lawyers argued that nonbinding arbitration is still “arbitration” under the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act.

More information about the terms of the proposed T-Mobile settlement was not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also mark this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Taras Kick, Thomas A. Segal and James Strenio of the Kick Law Firm.

The T-Mobile Cellphone Insurance Class Action Lawsuit Settlement is Wineesa Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asurion Corp., et al, Case No. 13-56218, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

UPDATE: Instructions on how to file a claim for the cellphone insurance class action settlement are now available! Click here for details.

UPDATE 2: On Jan. 26, 2016, a Class Member filed an objection to the $4.2 million settlement claiming that Class Members were provided inadequate notice about the proposed deal and that the settlement agreement does not provide enough compensation.