The recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Macomber v. Travelers did not represent a victory for either the defendants or
the plaintiff according to Ralph Stone, the lead plaintiff attorney.
During a March 31, 2006 podcast interview with Mark Wahlstrom currently featured on The Settlement Channel, Stone provided his perspective on the decision.
Here are highlights from Mark Wahlstrom's audio interview with Ralph Stone:
“The
defendants have very little to be happy about", according to Stone. "The reasoning of the
Connecticut Supreme Court had nothing to do with what the defendants were
seeking in their appeal of class certification.”
In considering the Macomber case for a second time, the
Connecticut Supreme Court reached two decisions. Stone characterized the first decision, that the
plaintiff Lisa Macomber does not have a claim against Solomon Smith Barney, as “trivial”. “We have always had our sights on Travelers. Travelers is really the wrongdoer here.”
Stone described the second decision as criticism of the trial
court, as well as the parties, for limiting discovery. The Connecticut Supreme
Court determined the discovery process was inadequate to certify a larger
class under Connecticut law and remanded the case to the trial court for additional proceedings. Stone pointed out the
defendants, not the plaintiff, wanted to limit discovery. The trial court agreed with the defendants
and limited discovery to 28 cases out of potentially thousands nationwide. On remand, the discovery process is expected to be more comprehensive.
Stone would not predict any timetables for discovery noting the
Macomber case in now eight years old. The new trial judge will be the fifth trial judge in the case according
to Stone.
Acknowledging the Macomber case is one of the most important
and divisive within the structured settlement industry, Stone said he hopes the
case will raise awareness among plaintiff attorneys about the structured settlement conduct of some defendants and insurance carriers that Stone and his client, Lisa Macomber, allege is illegal. “A number of insurers have already abandoned these
practices,” Stone said.
Stone characterized the alleged improper business conduct by
Travelers as “kickbacks” involving the purchase of annuities to fund structured
settlements. He called the practices unfair
and abusive violations of Connecticut’s
Unfair Trade Practices Act and Unfair Insurance Practices Acts. "When people settle their
claims, they want to know what their claims are worth. We hope to improve
disclosure in the structured settlement industry.”
Stone predicted more litigation involving structured
settlements. Referencing investigations
by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Stone said “insurers will be
exposed and called to task for conduct they have been trying to hide."
Additional Resources for Macomber v. Travelers:
- Opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court
Recent Comments