In a summary order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of two "shadow insurance" putative class action lawsuits against Axa Equitable Life Insurance and Metropolitan Life Insurance on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to sue them in United States District Court. The Complaints alleged that the insurance companies misused captive reinsurers domiciled in foreign jurisdictions to avoid higher reserve requirements of U.S. jurisdictions, resulting in the misstatement of their financial information and increased risks for plaintiffs. The District Court had dismissed the suits based on the failure of the plaintiffs to establish Article III standing.
The Court of Appeals found that the Complaints failed adequately to allege that the plaintiffs had suffered injury-in-fact, a necessary element of Article III standing. First, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that allegations that the companies had violated New York Insurance Law section 4226 sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact because of injury "inherent in the statutory violation." The Court held that "[t]he mere fact that an insurer may make a misleading representation does not require or even lead to the necessary conclusion that the misleading representation is material or even likely to cause harm." Second, the Court held that to establish standing plaintiffs had to allege that the injury-in-fact was concrete, particularized, and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." (Citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). The Court found that the harm alleged in the Complaints was speculative and hypothetical, insufficient to establish standing.
For readers interested in a deeper reading of this appeal click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
