Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

February 6, 2018

Margery Newman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.

          Argued September 19, 2017

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 16 C 3530 - Thomas M. Durkin, Judge.

          Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

          WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE

         At age 56, Margery Newman purchased a long-term care insurance plan from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"). She opted for one of MetLife's non-standard options for paying her insurance premiums; MetLife called the method she selected "Reduced-Pay at 65." When Newman was 67 years old, she was startled to discover that MetLife that year more than doubled her insurance premium. MetLife insists that the increase is consistent with Newman's insurance policy, including its Reduced-Pay-at-65 feature. Newman was unpersuaded and brought this action to vindicate her position. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. We conclude, however, that Newman is entitled to relief on her contract claim and that dismissal of the remaining claims was premature. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

         I

         Two documents lie at the heart of this case. The first is Met-Life's "Long-Term Care Facts" brochure, which Newman reviewed before purchasing her insurance plan. The brochure describes long-term care generally and catalogs MetLife's non-standard payment options. Newman learned of MetLife's Reduced-Pay option from the brochure. The full description reads as follows:

Reduced-Pay at 65 Option:
By paying more than the regular premium amount you would pay each year up to the Policy Anniversary on or after your 65th birthday, you pay half the amount of your pre-age 65 premiums thereafter.

         At the foot of the same page, MetLife instructs the reader that the brochure is only a general overview of MetLife's insurance plans, and that the policy governs the terms of the agreement.

         Equipped with this information, Newman purchased a long-term care insurance plan from MetLife and selected the Reduced-Pay option. Roughly a week later, she received the policy-the second critical document. The policy is 29 pages long. It includes just one reference to the Reduced-Pay option:

In addition, you have selected the following flexible premium payment option: Reduced Pay at 65 Semi-Annual Premium Amount:
Before Policy Anniversary at age 65 $3231.93
On or after Policy Anniversary at age 65 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.