McEvoy v. Savings Bank Life Insurance Co. of Massachusetts (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-084-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2017-1961 BLS1 LESLIE V. McEVOY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, vs. SAVINGS BANK LIFE INSUARNCE CO. OF MASSACHUSETTS MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The plaintiff Leslie V. McEvoy alleges that she holds a participating whole life insurance policy issued by the defendant Savings Bank Life Insurance Co. (SBLI).1 In this action, she seeks to enjoin all SBLI’s policyholders from voting on a proposed conversion of SBLI from a stock life insurance company to a mutual life insurance company. The case came before the court on June 27, 2017 on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the vote until additional disclosures concerning the plan of conversion demanded by her were made to SBLI’s other 480,000 policyholders. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the vote on the plan of conversion is to occur at a Special Meeting of policyholders scheduled for that purpose on June 28, 2017. It appears, however, that voting has actually been underway for weeks. While the meeting was scheduled for 11:00 AM on June 28, 2017, and policyholders present at the meeting who had not previously voted could vote at that time, voting opened on May 19, 2017 and could be accomplished by mail, phone call, or on the internet, so long as the votes were 1 It appears that the plaintiff owns two policies, each in the face amount of $ 1,000, although was is pledged to a division of the State of New Hampshire. 2 received in time to be counted by the time of the meeting. As a result, the majority of votes cast in this election may well have been received by SBLI management before the annual meeting. In consequence, from a practical perspective a motion brought before the court on the afternoon of June 27th to preliminarily enjoin the vote that was to be completed and tallied the following morning was not timely. The proposed conversion of SBLI into a mutual insurance company calls for the SBLI shareholders, 30 Massachusetts banks or banks that had acquired Massachusetts banks, to receive $ 57.3 million in return for their shares in SBLI. This sum is to be financed through the issuance of Surplus Notes. While SBLI and its financial advisers have been working for some time on the sale of these Surplus Note to certain financial institutions, at oral argument the court was informed that the closing on that transaction was still two or three weeks away. In theory, therefore, the court could still issue a mandatory preliminary injunction voiding the vote, which would of course preclude any possibility […]
Week in Review: Life In Prison for South End Murder
In case you missed it, here are this week's top headlines from the South End. South End Patch News
Man Gets Life in Prison for South End Murder
Roslindale resident Ricardo Arias was convicted in the 2011 murder of Alex Sierra in the South End. South End Patch News
Watertown Rescue’s Actions Helped Save MBTA Officer’s Life
It was a typical 24-hour shift for Watertown Fire Department firefighters James Caruso and Patrick Menton assigned to the department’s rescue ambulance; a few medical calls and some training. Pretty routine for a Thursday, Caruso would remember. But the everyday would within minutes transform into a maelstrom of bullets and bombs. The pair rushed to aid a police officer in a Watertown neighborhood, hit in an exchange of gunfire with the alleged Boston Marathon bombers. “From calm to chaos,” said Menton. Caruso and Menton have worked together periodically on the ambulance which is Caruso’s assignment. In fact, Menton was only scheduled to accompany Caruso after James’ usual partner’s wife gave birth earlier on April 18. The pair — Westford-native Caruso and Menton who was born, raised and is living in Watertown — who joined the department together eight years ago, would be on the 8 a.m. to 8 a.m. shift. Earlier in the week, the department put a second rescue unit on duty as a result of the Boston Marathon bombing, but were not called into the city. It was a fairly quiet night Thursday, until just after midnight when the chatter on the radio began picking up from dispatchers and police and fire: an officer shot and killed at MIT, a car jacking, a wild car chase heading west along Memorial Drive in the direction of Watertown. Then around 12:45 a.m., dispatch relayed to Watertown Rescue the call of “officer down” during a running gun battle along Laural Street with two heavily-armed suspects. Despite the hundreds of round-fired and pipe bombs lying on the street, the pair raced to the heart of the battle. “We didn’t know there had been shots fired, but all we knew was there was an officer needing help so we went in. That was it,” said Caruso. “It was a bit nerve-wracking but instincts just kicked in so you are not really thinking about it,” said Menton. When Caruso and Menton arrived, they were waved to the intersection of Laural and Dexter where they found a group of officers in a driveway. Jumping out of the truck’s cab, the EMTs saw officers working on Richard Donohue Jr., a MBTA officer who was part of the police chase into Watertown. The 33-year-old Donohue was hit by a round that severed three of four major leg arteries, producing a steady steam of blood draining into the street. As Caruso and Menton got out, the officers carried the limp unconscious officer to the back of the vehicle. They soon realized that Donohue had effectively lost his entire blood supply from the wound. “You can’t even describe […]
BU Memorial Highlights the Life of Lu Lingzi
A memorial service for Lu Lingzi at Boston University’s Marsh Chapel on Monday night celebrated the way the graduate student lived life, not how it was taken away from her. “(Lingzi) is gone but our memories (of her) are very alive,” eulogized her father, Lu Jun, who flew in from China on Friday night with his wife. His words were translated. His daughter, Lu, 23, was one of three victims who died from the Boston Marathon bombings. “She was the family’s Shirley Temple if you will,” said her father, recounting stories of how his only child confidently entertained through dancing, playing the piano and smiling – always smiling. Jun said his daughter was never shy, gave congratulatory speeches at family members’ birthday parties on behalf of the entire family, and never wavered in her desire to study abroad. Musical selections such as ‘Pie Jesu’ from Requeim by Gabriel Faure, and ‘Sarabande’ from Cello Suite No. 1 by Bach, were played as Gov. Deval Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray looked on. Zheng Minhui, Lu’s classmate, also recalled her friend’s smile, “Her infectious smile… and she smiled so much.” “She was a truly sweet girl and always wanted to express her gratitude for her friends,” said Minhui, adding that Lu had recently bought her lunch to thank her for helping her with an exam. Jing Li, Lu’s roommate said she and Lu thought they were long-lost sisters being from the northern part of China, and having many similarities such as their passion for the piano, and being gradute students in the Statistics program. “We both didn’t have a boyfriend… We were sad we were too busy to go out and meet some nice boys,” said Li. Lu’s name meant “wonderfulness and beauty” in ancient Chinese, said Li, which she found out after asking her best friend. A Boston University scholarship in honor of Lu Lingzi, which was endowed this past Friday, was mentioned several times as how Lu’s dreams will live on. “I know Lingzi needs us to be brave and strong,” said Li. “… and try to realize your unfinished dreams.” South End Patch
Categories: Arrests Tags: Highlights, Life, Lingzi, Memorial
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Cotter (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-044-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us <bbsdir:13Mar_15.SJC> SJC‑11135 <toc><cname>Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. James M. Cotter</cname><cite>464 Mass. ?</cite></toc> <toc><cname>James M. Cotter (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v.)</cname><cite>464 Mass. ?</cite></toc> <name> METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. JAMES M. COTTER. <endname> <appfrom>Middlesex. <argudate>November 5, 2012. ‑ <decdate>March 15, 2013. <present>Present: <sc>Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, </sc>& Lenk</sc>, JJ. <catchwds> <idxtop1>Insurance, <idxtop2>Disability insurance, <idxtop2>Construction of policy, <idxtop2>Coverage. <idxtop1>Contract, <idxtop2>Insurance, <idxtop2>Unjust enrichment. <idxtop1>Damages, <idxtop2>Restitution. <idxtop1>Restitution. <idxtop1>Unjust Enrichment. <hdn> <prior> Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2007. The case was heard by Thomas P. Billings, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. <cnsl> Praven Shenoy for the defendant. Joseph M. Hamilton (David L. Fine with him) for the plaintiff. Julie Simon Miller, of the District of Columbia, & Jeffrey L. Williams, for America’s Health Insurance Plans, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. After paying disability benefits to the defendant, James M. Cotter, for several years, the plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), determined that Cotter had failed to satisfy a clause in his “own occupation” disability insurance policy that required him to receive care by a physician that “is appropriate for the condition causing the disability.”[1] Interpreting this clause as requiring Cotter to pursue treatment aimed at returning him to his prior occupation, MetLife advised Cotter that the care he was receiving was not appropriate because it expressly disavowed a return to his prior occupation, and, indeed, was focused on a “return to work in [an] alternate occupation.” MetLife informed Cotter that it would continue to pay him benefits under a reservation of rights during the pendency of the litigation, and filed an action in the Superior Court seeking a judgment declaring that it had no continuing obligation to pay benefits to Cotter and reimbursement of benefits it had paid under the unilaterally asserted reservation of rights. Cotter filed counterclaims for violations of G. L. c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D. Following a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge directed the entry of a judgment declaring that, because Cotter was not receiving care “appropriate for the condition causing the disability,” MetLife was not required to continue paying him benefits, but declaring also that MetLife was not entitled to restitution of any benefits paid. The judge denied Cotter’s counterclaims and his motion for reconsideration. The judge also […]
Korn v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-042-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑432 Appeals Court LAWRENCE D. KORN vs. THE PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 12‑P‑432. Worcester. January 16, 2013. ‑ March 13, 2013. Present: Kantrowitz, Meade, & Agnes, JJ. Res Judicata. Judgment, Preclusive effect. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 20, 2010. The case was heard by James R. Lemire, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Jonathan M. Feigenbaum for the plaintiff. Joseph M. Hamilton (David L. Fine with him) for the defendant. MEADE, J. Lawrence D. Korn, a resident of the State of Michigan, appeals from an order that granted summary judgment to The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Paul Revere) on res judicata grounds. On appeal, Korn claims his present claim was not barred by claim preclusion, and the judge erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. We affirm. 1. Background. In 1988, Paul Revere issued a disability policy to Korn that would provide Korn, an attorney, with monthly payments in the event he became occupationally disabled and was unable to perform the “important duties of [his] occupation.” In 2000, Korn claimed that psychiatric problems, depression, and memory problems led him to abandon his law practice. In October of that year, Korn filed a claim for benefits under the disability policy. In 2001, Paul Revere denied Korn’s claim on two grounds: first, the evidence provided did not support Korn’s claim that he was unable to work, and second, Korn had not satisfied the proof-of-loss requirement because he failed to submit the information Paul Revere had requested. a. Federal court. In 2004, Korn brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (District Court) against Paul Revere for breach of contract, claiming that Paul Revere wrongfully withheld disability benefits that were due under the policy. In 2005, a District Court judge initially allowed Paul Revere’s motion to dismiss the suit as untimely under a contractual limitation period. In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit), in an unpublished decision, reversed in part and remanded the case to the District Court. On remand, the District Court required that discovery be completed by September 30, 2008, and that all pretrial motions be filed by October 30, […]