“Larry Stewart said shortly after his father gave the agent money for a [million-dollar life insurance] policy, the elder Stewart had a stroke, lapsed into a coma and died about seven weeks later at age 73.” Strangely enough, the agent and Prudential didn’t have a record of the policy. A jury believed the Stewarts, because it’s common for 73-year-old men to have brand-new million-dollar life-insurance policies, and awarded $36.4 million against Prudential (and $9600 against the insurance agent), who will appeal. The $35 million punitive damages award would have been capped had the case been brought after liability reforms were passed in Mississippi in 2003. (Jimmie E. Gates, “$36.4M awarded in lawsuit”, The Clarion-Ledger, Feb. 17).
Jackpot justice in Mississippi
“Larry Stewart said shortly after his father gave the agent money for a [million-dollar life insurance] policy, the elder Stewart had a stroke, lapsed into a coma and died about seven weeks later at age 73.” Strangely enough, the agent and Prudential didn’t have a record of the policy. A jury believed the Stewarts, because […]
4 Comments
I’d be interested to know what evidence the plaintiffs presented. In the article they claim that “he signed papers” and wrote a check. If they have copies of the documents and a cancelled check, it would be a slam dunk and punitive damages probably would be warranted. If all they have is the family’s testimony, excuse me while I go sue an insurance company.
I agree with Patrick, up to a point that considers a scenario of family-agent collusion and backdating. Regardless, a 35:1 punitive damages ratio is excessive.
I can’t imagine that Prudential would have any incentive to bring this case to trial if the evidence was anywhere near as clearcut against them as in the worst-case scenario Patrick suggests.
Here’s the part I don’t understand: why is Prudential on the hook for SOOOOOO much, and the actualy agent is on the hook for peanuts?
Here are the only scenarios I can think of, and neither of them work:
1) Agent is the guilty party, hid papers from Prudential. Why would Prudential pay?
2) Agent turned in papers, Prudential refused to pay. Why is the agent on the hook at all?
The only other scenario would be
3) The agent and Prudential both lied, and we know this because… um, the family says so.
As Patrick says, if it’s 3, time to go sue insurance companies (at least in that jurisdiction).
This case makes no sense:
1- if there’s a cancelled check, then there’s no reason to defend aginst the suit – pay up and be done with it.
2- if there’s no cancelled check, the family made it up or the agent is the only crooked person involved – either way, Prudential shouldn’t be getting whopped for $35 million.
A) the family made it up, so there should be criminal charges pending, or
B) the agent is crooked, in which there should be criminal charges pending.
The only way this verdict makes anything close to sense is if the Prudential legal team is suicidal or insane.
Whatever happened to directed verdicts and JNOV’s?