Insurance

Hanson v. Acceleration Life, et al., Civ. No. A3:97-152, 1999 WL 33283345 (D.N.D. Mar. 18, 1999) (certifying class, rejecting file rate doctrine, and denying summary judgment); 2000 WL 33340298 (June 21, 2001), Order of Dec. 11, 1999 (approving final settlement of $14.7 million), pp. 8-9: ("This litigation was hard fought throughout its two year pendency and required thousands of hours of counsel's time and hundreds of thousands of dollars advanced for expenses, with significant risk of no compensation. Both local counsel and national class counsel are commended for their willingness to take on this cause when there were no virtually no precedents to assure them of likely success. They are all highly skilled and well-experienced attorneys who appreciate the risky nature of this litigation; yet their strong desire to correct a perceived injustice suffered by a vulnerable group of people led them to take the risk. . . . Counsel's considerable skill, both in the substantive areas of this case as well as in discovery and class action procedure, together with their degree of preparation were primary factors leading to the favorable settlement for the class. Of equal note is the fact that counsel unquestionably put the interests of the class far ahead of their own interests." (emphasis added)); cited with approval in Milkman v. American Travellers Life Ins. Co., 2002 WL 778272,*25 (Pa.Comm Pl. 4/1/02) (No. 3775 June Term 2000); "Long-Term Care - Buyer Beware," Senate Report of the Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, Massachusetts Senate (Apr. 2002), pp. 14, 28; discussed in, Mila Koffman and Lee Thompson, Consumer Protection and Long-Term Care Insurance: Predictability of Premiums, Georgetown University, Long-Term Care Financing Project, ISSUE BRIEF (Mar. 2004); Stephanie Lewis, John Wilkins, and Mark Merlis, Regulation of Private Long-Term Care Insurance: Implementation Experience and Key Issues, (Mar. 2003) for the Kaiser Family Foundation, p. viii; Ellen Hoffman, The Hidden Costs of Long-Term Care Policies, BUSINESS WEEK (Sept. 2000); Is a Backlash Brewing in LTC? NEWSWEEK (Aug. 30, 1999) (by Jane Bryant Quinn).

Milkman v. American Travellers Life Insurance Co., No. 03775, 2002 WL 778272, (June Term 2000) (Ct. Comm. Pleas, Apr. 1, 2002) ("The impressive credentials and experience of Class Counsel were referenced with approval in the Nov. Opinion. [Slip op. at 11, p. 11] . . . The competence, experience and involvement of Class Counsel, as well as the expansive discovery undertaken in this case, have been discussed elsewhere and militate in favor of treating Class Counsel's opinion with great deference. Thus, Class Counsel's recommendation of the Settlement supports an order decreeing its approval [p. 35] . . . Given the work done by Class Counsel for the Class, as well as the agreement of the Defendants that an award of attorneys' fees is warranted, it is appropriate to award attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, p. 44, . . . There is no question that Class Counsel has expended a great deal of time and effort on this matter [p. 46] . . . Again, the quality of the legal representation provided by Class Counsel is exceptional. The extensive experience of each of the firms and individual attorneys serving the Class is set forth in Kanner Affidavit Paragraphs 54 through 68. Moreover, the Court can attest to Class Counsel's professionalism and skill, as demonstrated by the extensive memoranda of law and the first-class oral arguments delivered on behalf of the Class [p. 47] . . . The high risk of brining this action, including the fact that this case was brought on a contingency basis, as well as the relief obtained from the Class and Class Counsel's involvement in and contribution to Settlement negotiations, are discussed elsewhere in this Opinion and support the application of a considerable multiplier [p. 51]"). See also, Milkman v. American Travellers Life Insurance Co., Feb. Term, 2000, No. 3775 (Nov. 26, 2001) (Herron, J.) (emphasis added) (http://courts.phila.gov/ cptcvcomp.htm) (preliminary approval order); Gregg v. Independence Blue Cross, 2004 Phila.Ct.Comm.Pl. LEXIS 3 No. 3482, 2004 WL 5135565 (Pa. Comm- P1. 4/22/04); Raider v. Sunderland, 2006 Del.Ch. LEXIS 4 19357 NC, 2006 WL 4763688 (Del.Ch. Jan. 4, 2006); Jurinko v Medical Protective Co., No. 03-4053, 2006 WL 17913741 at *6 (E.D.Pa. June 23, 2006); discussed in, GOODRICH-AMRAM (2ND) 1716:1 (2007) ("Factors considered in determining amount of counsel fees") Norman Monhait, Selected Cases and Rules for Session on Legal Ethics in Class Actions and Derivative Litigation, 1599 PLI/CORP. 593, 597 (2007) ("Compensating the lead plaintiff for efforts expended is...a necessary measure, returning certain lead plaintiffs to theri positon before the case was initiated"), ABA SURVEY OF STATE CLASS ACTION LAW, Pennsylvania 12, Settlement (2006); Douglas Hefferon, Class Action Update: The Increasing Scrutiny of Class Settlements and Other Developments, 60 BUS. LAW 797, 811 (2005);Mila Koffman and Lee Thompson, Consumer Protection and Long-Term Care Insurance: Predictability of Premiums, Georgetown University, Long-Term Care Financing Project, ISSUE BRIEF (Mar. 2004); Jordon Ginsberg, Class Action Notice: The Internet's Time Has Come, 2003, U.CHI LEGAL: F. 739,772 (2003); Imre Szalai, Class Actions: Developments In Life Insurance and Annuity Litigation, S0028 AL-ABA 315, 328 (2002);SMART MONEY (Dec. 2002), p. 117, SMART MONEY (Dec. 2002), p. 117.

Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 06-2335, slip. op. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006) (Klausner, J.) (denying motion to dismiss, in part, as to claims for violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Act and for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and financial abuse of the elderly and granting, in part, as to constructive fraud claim); slip. op. (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (Klausner, J.) (certifying class), permission to appeal denied, No. 07-80017, slip. op. (9th Cir. April 9, 2007); slip op. (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2007) (Guitierrez, J.) (denying in part motion for partial summary judgment on claims for violation of Unfair Competition Act and for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and financial abuse of the elderly, and on defense of filed rate doctrine, and granting, in part, as to Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim); slip op. (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2007) (Gutierrez, J.) (denying second motion for partial summary judgment on the merits); slip. op (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2008) (Gutierrez, J.) (approving final national class settlement of $60 million) (www.ltcclassaction.com).

Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America, No. 06-99, 2007 WL 2122195 (N.D.Iowa July 20, 2007) (denying motion to dismiss and applying forum law of defendant’s home state to out-of-state plaintiffs).

Langston v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, No. 53-219, Fiv. '" (25th Jud. Dist. Plaquemines, LA) (upholding Louisiana Valued Policy Law); Rebecca Mowbray, Louisiana Run Insurer Ordered to Pay, Times Picayune, (February 13, 2007).

Gilbert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 WL 641540 (E.D.La. 3/1/07) (Louisiana valued policy law could apply where the homeowner alleged "that a covered cause was the proximate cause of [homeowner's] total loss").

Wallace v. American Agrinsurance, Inc. et al., No. LR-C-99-669 (E.D.Ark.) (certifying and approving multi-million dollar settlement of rice farmer claims against crop insurance company); Order of Mar. 3, 2005 by Special Master, Judge Lawrence E. Dawson ("I have nothing but admiration for you and your associates for the outstanding manner in which you at all times represented the class plaintiffs in this case").