This article will discuss a Guaranteed Investment Contracts lawsuit involving two Nationwide Life insurance companies. Both companies were found guilty of breaching their fiduciary duties and engaging in self-dealing behavior. This case demonstrates the need for informed investors to take legal action against financial firms. It’s important to know how to make the right decision when buying or selling guaranteed investment contracts. Here are some tips for pursuing a lawsuit.
Unisys v. Executive Life Insurance Co.
Unisys v. Executive Life Insurance Co. is a case in which two insurers were found liable for not providing coverage for a policyholder’s loss. In this case, Unisys demanded IGA coverage for interest, principal, and losses. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the IGA must provide coverage under the act. The trial court denied coverage under the IGA and awarded summary judgment to the defendants.
Unisys v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Unisys v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is a class action lawsuit filed against a mutual insurance company for failure to pay claims made by its former client. The company had incurred environmental liabilities due to its operations in 21 states. In this lawsuit, Unisys argues that its insurer, Nationwide, did not pay these claims, and therefore should be forced to pay the damages it incurred.
In its decision, the District Court found that Darden did not qualify as an employee under the ERISA statute because he was an independent contractor under common-law agency principles, rather than an employee. The law defines an employee as an individual employed by an employer. In this case, Darden was not an employee, and therefore not entitled to retirement benefits. In the case of Unisys, Darden was not able to receive the benefits due to the disqualification.
This case involves ERISA fiduciary duty cases. In this case, the plaintiffs are trustees of qualified ERISA pension benefit plans. They argue that Nationwide violated its fiduciary duties when it accepted revenue-sharing payments from mutual funds. The Second Circuit impliedly affirmed this determination. The Supreme Court is weighing a case similar to this one. It may be worth a look to determine whether a class-wide suit can be successful.
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
The plaintiffs are licensed insurance agents in Connecticut and began an employment relationship with the defendants in 1972, 1980, and 1983. They were considered independent contractors but agreed to sell insurance products for Nationwide under certain conditions. Paragraph eleven of the contract set forth the terms of “Agency Security Compensation,” or deferred compensation. In other words, they agreed to work for the company and earn a percentage of each sale.
The plaintiffs, in this case, named both defendants and their respective representatives as defendants. The plaintiffs initially named Steven T. Miles and James U. Shortly, associate vice presidents of the defendants. However, they moved to strike these claims. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The case is now before the court for a determination of damages.
The plaintiffs in Nationwide Life Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. were filed by Diane P. Deming, Robert H. Bardin, and Edward J. McMahon, who alleged that the defendants wrongfully withheld compensation that they valued at $2 million. The plaintiffs’ claim is based on conversion, theft, breach of contract, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
