Asokan v. Am. Gen. Ins. Co.

Asokan v. Am. Gen. Ins. Co.

Opinion

 [*1306]  ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the following:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 110), filed April 17, 2017;

2. Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 114); filed May 1, 2017;

3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 115), filed May 1, 2017;

4. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc, 133), filed May 19, 2017; and

5. Defendant's Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 137), filed June 2, 2017.

The parties have completed their briefing and the Court is otherwise fully advised on the premises. Upon consideration and review of the record, including all pleadings, deposition transcripts, affidavits, exhibits, and the parties' respective legal memoranda, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' Motion for  [*1307]  Reconsideration, [**3]  and grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

Plaintiffs sue Defendant, American General Life Insurance Company ("American General"), for failing to disclose crucial information to Plaintiffs when they invested in Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association ("VEBA") programs that included life insurance policies issued by American General. (Doc. 54, ¶ 2). The particular VEBA programs that Plaintiffs invested in have been found to be tax avoidance schemes, and have thus subjected Plaintiffs to penalties issued by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Plaintiffs claim that American General knew that the VEBA programs at issue in this case did not comply with federal law, and yet failed to disclose that information to Plaintiffs. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that American General promoted and marketed the Programs despite its knowledge of the Programs' noncompliance. Plaintiffs bring claims for (1) common law unfair competition (Count II); (2) misleading advertising under Florida Statute § 817.41 (Count III); (3) fraud by concealment (Count IV); (4) common law fraud (Count V); (5) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), [**4]  Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201-.223 (Count VII); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (Count VIII); (7) constructive fraud (Count IX); and (8) negligent misrepresentation (Count X).¹

B. The Sea Nine VEBA Program

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.