Tag Archive for: Insurance Companies

Boles Holmes White Attorney Wally Walker Assists in Securing Affirmance of $40 Million Settlement for Plaintiff Class. March 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the approval of an approximate $40 million class action settlement. Wally Walker, co-lead counsel, orally argued the case before the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit found that the lower court in Maryland did not abuse its discretion in approving the agreement reached between the policyholders and Banner Life Insurance and William Penn Insurance Companies. In affirming the district court’s approval of the settlement as fair to the class, it said: “[the] settlement was reached after an extensive motions practice, extensive discovery and investigation of Banner and William Penn policies by Plaintiffs’ counsel and multiple settlement discussions and negotiations.”

The Fourth Circuit stated that this case should be considered a poster child for deferential treatment. Therefore, afforded the District Court as it was “chock-full of the most esoteric principles of life insurance accounting imaginable.”  The Court’s twenty-five page opinion clarified the standard in the Fourth Circuit for objections to class settlements as follows. For instance, objectors of the settlement must state and support their objection, and proponents must demonstrate that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate despite the objection. 

Boles Holmes White’s Succeed

The named plaintiffs, represented by Walker and co-lead counsel Dee Miles, alleged the companies unfairly increased the cost of insurance charges on certain universal life insurance policies in 2015. In May 2019, Maryland Federal District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett approved the $38.2 million class-wide settlement between plaintiffs and Defendants Banner Life Insurance Co. and William Penn Life Insurance Co. Therefore, consisted of more than 10,750 universal life policyholders.

Boles Holmes White Attorney Wally Walker Assists in Securing Affirmance of $40 Million Settlement for Plaintiff Class Conclusion:

However, before the Maryland court could give final approval, one policyholder objected to the settlement – the 1988 Trust for Allen Children (Allen Trust). The Allen Trust argued that the settlement provides no compensation for damages it called “Deficit Account Harm.” The district court permitted the Allen Trust discovery to assist in determining whether the objection was meritorious. Furthermore, which the Fourth Circuit acknowledged was “an extremely unusual occurrence” but was within the district court’s discretion.

Walker and Miles, as Court-appointed co-lead counsel, represented the named plaintiffs and succeeded in arguing before the district court. Proving that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to all class members notwithstanding the lone objector’s arguments. 

The case is 1988 Trust for Allen Children v. Banner Life Insurance Company, case number 20-1630, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Section 2: Scientific Explanation of Pharmaceutical Contamination

A.   Human Impact

              Most pharmaceuticals in the water occur in concentrations far below prescribed dosages.  Nevertheless, micro-dose exposure to many drugs over a long period poses great human health risk.[8] Pharmaceuticals are designed to effect biological change, and thus these compounds pose a greater risk to human health than other anthropogenically- originating chemicals in the environment.[9] Additionally, human exposure to pharmaceuticals in water is not limited to the water humans consume.  Exposure also occurs through the consumption of fish and shellfish that have bioaccumulated pharmaceuticals or have been in contact with contaminated water.[10] The most studied side effect of consuming pharmaceutically contaminated water is endocrine system disruption.[11]

 Endocrine resistance occurs when drugs that mimic naturally occurring hormones or drugs that are exogenous forms of hormones produced in the body are consumed and cause the endocrine system to stop producing its own hormones.[12] Such endocrine disrupting affects can “include breast cancer and endometriosis in women, testicular and prostate cancers in men, abnormal sexual development, reduced male fertility, alteration in pituitary and thyroid gland functions, immune suppression and neurobehavioral effects.”[13]  There is a direct relationship between the generational decline in men’s testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels and the amount of birth control prescribed for and consumed by women.[14]

              Pharmaceuticals in the water also contribute to antimicrobial resistance, which occurs when microbes that adapt to antimicrobial agents reproduce and then pass on that resistance gene.[15] Such resistance poses serious public health risks, such as the need for\multiple rounds of antibiotics to kill bacteria or the inability to fight infections altogether.[16]

              While antimicrobial resistance of the endocrine system and to antibiotics is an indisputable effect of consuming pharmaceutically contaminated water, some scientists argue that there are few other side effects to human consumption of such water.[17] This camp believes that new sewage treatment mechanisms are not necessary. But there is a large group of scientists who disagree. They argue that there have not been enough studies conducted and that presently there are inefficient means to detect the threats that long term, low dose consumption of many pharmaceuticals pose.[18]

           

  Despite the lack of human studies, there have been many studies on how pharmaceutically contaminated water impacts individual human cells. In one study, scientists exposed healthy cells to a dosage of pharmaceuticals similar to that found in Italian rivers – the result was that cells grew a third as fast as they did prior to exposure.[19] Another study found that breast cancer cells exposed to estrogens taken fromfish that were caught near sewage plants grew twice as quickly as unexposed cells.[20]  Other studies have found that individual drugs can cause cell growth, but when drugs that cause growth are combined with other drugs, growth can actually be slowed.[21] Such effects prove that pharmaceuticals have synergistic effects. Yet in the lab and in testing for humans, such effects are not studied because most drugs are not designed to be stacked with other compounds.[22]

[8] Kolpin, supra note 1.

[9] Halford, supra note 2.

[10] GLOBAL WATER RESEARCH COALITION, OCCURRENCE AND POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE WATER SYSTEM 2 (2009).

[11] Karyn Feiden, Pharmaceuticals Are in the Drinking Water: What Does It Mean?, Rapid Pub. Health Pol’y Response Project: Geo. Wash. Sch. of Pub. Health & Health Serv., 3 (April 2008)

[12] Thomas M. Crisp et al., Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis, 106 Envtl. Health Persp. 11, 11 (Supp. 1998).

[13] Tanya Tillett, Summit Focuses on Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water, 117 Envtl. Health Persp. A16, A16 (2009).

[14] Id.

[15] Antimicrobial Resistance, World Health Org. (Mar. 2016), http:// www.who.int/ mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/.

[16] Christopher T. Nidel, Regulating the Fate of Pharmaceutical Drugs: A New Prescription for the Environment, 58 Food & Drug L.J. 81, 83-84 (2003).

[17] Halford, supra note ii.

[18] Id.

[19] How Meds in Water Could Impact Human Cells, MSNBC (Feb. 16, 2010), http:// www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23558785.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Francisco Pomati et al., Effects and Interactions in an Environmentally Relevant Mixture of Pharmaceuticals, 102 Toxicology Sci. 129, 129 (2008).