Policyholders vs. MetLife: The Long-Term Care Insurance Battle
MetLife, one of the nation’s largest insurance providers, has faced waves of class-action lawsuits centered on its long-term care insurance policies. These lawsuits have had far-reaching impacts on both policyholders and the insurance industry, sparking discussion of coverage, affordability, and transparency with this unique insurance product.
A Timeline of Notable Lawsuits
Several critical lawsuits have defined this legal battle:
| Complete Date | Case | Short Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 2013 | (Multiple Class Actions Consolidated) | Lawsuits across US are combined into a single federal class action centered on alleged premium hikes and misrepresentations, affecting tens of thousands of policyholders nationwide. |
| Dec 2014 | Berger v. MetLife | This class action accuses MetLife of deceptively raising rates on older “closed-block” long-term care policies while misrepresenting contractually guaranteed premium amounts. |
| June 2020 | (Settlement Reached) | MetLife agrees to an $84 million settlement (after lengthy negotiations) for the major consolidated federal class action. While offering relief, the settlement amount falls far short of what policyholders lost due to inflated premiums. |
| Feb 2020 | Goldenberg v. MetLife | Lawsuit focused on MetLife’s “Reduced-Pay at 65” rider. Goldenberg alleges Metlife wrongfully increased premiums after policyholders turned 65, violating contractual agreements. |
Core Allegations & Counterarguments
At the heart of these lawsuits lie complex arguments around long-term care coverage:
-
Policyholders’ Perspective: Accusations target alleged price hikes MetLife claimed were needed due to unforeseen rising costs associated with care. Lawsuits claim pricing models were flawed and MetLife knew costs would exceed their initial projections. Further, allegations include misrepresentation of benefits and guarantees built into older policies.
-
MetLife’s Defense: It contends that unforeseen, industry-wide factors necessitated premiums increases. These included longer lifespans of insured individuals, higher care costs, and historically low interest rates eroding investment returns crucial for paying future claims. The insurer denies deceptive practices.
Broader Implications
The MetLife lawsuits have implications far beyond a single company:
-
Spotlight on Long-Term Care Costs: Lawsuits bring into stark focus the financial challenges with long-term care. Policies have become prohibitively expensive for many, underscoring the broader crisis of funding such care in America.
-
Insurance Regulation: Regulators face pressure to re-examine their oversight role. Some question how initial premiums were ever approved for older policies, which seemed destined to require steep hikes to be viable.
-
Evolving Contract Language: This may have a lasting impact on how future long-term care policies are written. Companies are likely to include far more explicit language reserving the right to raise premiums based on actuarial projections.
Outcomes and Unknowns
While recent settlements provide some relief to policyholders, the true costs have been borne by countless individuals:
-
Limited Recourse: While some policyholders might receive minor compensation, their premiums remain largely inflated, highlighting the limited ability of lawsuits to reverse systemic problems.
-
Future of LTC Insurance: The viability of affordable, stable long-term care insurance policies is questionable given the trends exposed by these legal battles.
-
Alternative Solutions: This situation sparks urgent policy debate about creating new models for funding long-term care as opposed to traditional private insurance approaches.
Important Notice:
- Specific Policies Vary: It’s crucial to consult with an attorney if a MetLife Long-Term Care policyholder, as circumstances differ depending on your policy, state, and timeframe of purchase.
- Not Legal Guidance: This is an overview of a complex topic, and should not be taken as legal or financial advice.
