Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog 2026

Structured settlements expert John Darer reviews the latest structured settlements and settlement planning information and news, and provides expert opinion and highly regarded commentary. that is spicy, Informative, irreverent and effective for over 20 years.

Appeal of AIG Class Action Dismissal Fails | Ezell v Lexington Insurance et al a Resounding Failure

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Efforts by disgruntled former structured settlement broker Richard B Risk Jr. to score another big payday off the backs of an insurance company have ended in a resounding failure..

AIG Lawsuit shipwreck

Appeal of Ezell Lawsuit against AIG

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG PROPERTY CASUAL TY COMPANY; AIG SPECIAL TY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.; AGC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL ANNUITY SERVICE CORPORATION; AIG CLAIMS, INC., f/k/a AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Defendants, Appellees.  The analysis and decision was written by Retired United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter appears below. Disgruntled Dick bringing in “The Big Stick, Steven Berman of Hagens Berman, who had a string of 9 figure recoveries didn’t do the trick.

The Ezell lawsuit was poorly pleaded from the outset. In particular, the class representative cases were poorly chosen, in my opinion, for reasons I have explained in prior posts.

Souter wrote “Appellants conceded in their complaint that it is “[i]ndustrywide” practice for brokers to be paid “a standard sales commission of four percent (4%) of the annuity’s cost,” Amended Complaint ,Paragraph 31, and that the commission would be paid by the annuity issuer, id. , Paragraphs 35, 99(b), 100(b), 120(b), 121(b). Assuming that these allegations are true, as we must at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ,

  • The commission, in other words, was included in the price of a given annuity in the marketplace, and the appellants have provided no basis to infer that liability insurers in Lexington’s position were under any obligation to inform a settlement party of the items of overhead that it was the annuity industry’s continuing practice to account for in pricing their products, the annuity companies’ payment of brokers’ commissions from out of the money Lexington paid for the annuities does not belie the facts that Lexington paid the amounts it quoted and that appellants received exactly those specific annuity payments the agreements had promised, payments that the appellant.
  • Because there is no dispute that appellants did receive the periodic payment amounts they were promised in agreements containing no uncorrected misrepresentations, there is no allegation in the pleadings that appellants suffered the kind of harm necessary to make out a case of the statutory or common-law violations claimed”.
  • “The basic problem with appellants’ complaint is not that they failed to state some facts “with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rather, it is that the facts they have pleaded “with particularity” on the matters discussed here demonstrate the absence of any “circumstances constituting fraud. !Q,_ Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.”
Ezell v lexington


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Discover more from Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog 2026

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading