Contested Insurance Settlement Gets Judge's Preliminary Approval
By Ciaran McEvoy, LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL
Judge rejects consumer group's argument that settlement would shortchange class members.
LOS ANGELES - A judge has given his initial thumbs-up to a $545 million settlement of a long-running insurance class action, rejecting a consumer advocacy group's argument that the deal shortchanges the class.
The suit brought allegations that Farmers Group breached its fiduciary duties to millions of policyholders and violated California business code by tacking on unfair "management fees" to the cost of various types of insurance policies.
Terms of the settlement before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger call for Farmers to pay $455 million to 13 million policy holders who qualify for the money, court papers state. The average refund has been estimated at just $20 per class member.
Farmers policyholder R.C. Heublein, represented by Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based advocacy group, argues that the class deserves more.
In a tentative ruling issued last week, Highberger rejected the group's arguments that the settlement was a dud because it would require class members to fill out a complicated form in order to collect, and because any unclaimed money would go to insurance entities controlled by Farmers.
"The court is not persuaded that the former objections have any merit," Highberger ruled.
A Wednesday hearing is set for preliminary approval of the settlement. Final court approval of the proposed deal is scheduled for September.
The class is represented by a host of lawyers, including Thomas V. Girardi of Girardi Keese, who stand to be paid $90 million in attorney fees. Highberger ruled that the attorney fee request by class counsel seemed reasonable.
Farmers Group spokesman Mark Toohy declined to comment, pending Highberger's final ruling.
The settlement scuffle is notable, especially because it found Consumer Watchdog battling with the same prominent trial attorneys with whom it normally sides on behalf of consumers.
Harvey J. Rosenfield, Consumer Watchdog founder and author of Proposition 103, which reformed much of California's insurance industry, expressed disappointment in the case's likely outcome.
"We think the money should go back to the policy holders on whose behalf this case was brought," Rosenfield said.
Girardi, however, questioned Consumer Watchdog's motives for intervening.
"Consumer Watchdog is always after the money," Girardi said. "Their whole deal is 'Let's screw up the settlement, and if we screw up the settlement, maybe something good will happen for us.'"
The case is Fogel v. Farmers Group Inc., BC300142 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 1, 2003)
3/6/2014Legal UpdateCourt of Appeal to Hear DIRECTV’s Attempt to Force Consumers in Cancellation Fee Class Action into ArbitrationOn March 19, 2014, the California Court of Appeal will hold a hearing on DIRECTV’s attempt to force its customers who were... More >
3/25/2013Legal UpdateOur Legal Team had a busy week last week, with two big auto insurance rate victories and significant steps forward in our legal... More >
3/3/2011Legal UpdateThere were twenty-five lawyers in gray suits waiting in a Los Angeles Superior Court courtroom yesterday afternoon when I... More >
3/16/2011Blog PostIt took a lawsuit from Rosetta Stone, the language software company, and a Congressional hearing, but Google apparently has... More >
3/30/2011Legal UpdateColumnist Asks: Will Farmers Insurance Settlement Turn Into A Good Deal For Customers? Not Likely...Today Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik takes a hard look at a proposed settlement in a lawsuit against Farmers... More >