Chavez v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Los Angeles County

Superior Court Judge Maren E. Nelson

Defense Lawyers: Jennifer L. Keller, Jesse A. Gessin, Keller/Anderle LLP; Sean A. Commons, Melissa O. Evidente, Alexandra V. Ruiz, Sidley Austin LLP

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Timothy J. Morris, Gianelli & Morris ALC; Mary T. Rahmes, Marina del Rey

In February 2018, following a rare jury trial in a class action, Jennifer L. Keller obtained a full defense verdict for client Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. despite class claims of more than $40 million stemming from the underwriter's alleged obligation to pay dividends on a term life policy.

It was a bellwether case, the first of many opposing counsel intended to litigate. Chavez v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, BC435321 (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct., filed April 7, 2010).

After the 12-day trial, Keller and her team settled the national class with an agreement that her client would perform annual audits of its term policies. "No money changed hands," she said. "The plaintiffs' firm decided to walk away from the other cases."

Keller said one obstacle was that the case was to be tried in downtown Los Angeles, presenting her with a jury pool considered to be pro-plaintiff.

"The prospective jurors here tend to be young; they look like a Bernie Sanders convention," she said. "The plaintiff bar refers to downtown as 'the bank.'"

So she employed an expert in jury selection science, bolstering her own experience of having picked more than 150 juries. She ended up with an attentive panel that voted her way. "Some of the jurors told me after it was over they felt like they been in a master class on actuarial science," Keller said.

Earlier, with no settlement prospects and a trial looming, Keller made a tactical decision to employ a "less is more" approach to depositions, meaning she did not expose her team's background knowledge of the plaintiff's insurance expert.

"Instead, we locked him into his answers," Keller said. "Then, at trial, we showed that in articles and at seminars he had said the exact opposite of his answers in the depo. We did that over and over to the point where he had no credibility. He and plaintiffs' counsel hadn't realized we'd loaded up so much."

She added that second chair Sean A. Commons had spent months working on analogies, anecdotes and graphics to simplify the defense for the jury.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Timothy J. Morris said he was disappointed with the no damages verdict. "But I am satisfied that the settlement provides a benefit to the class."

In court, he argued that MassMutual should have checked its term life policies to see whether policyholders deserved dividends.

"We said there never were enough profits to make that a possibility," Keller noted. "We said, if you walk past your pantry every day and it's empty, there's no need to do a volumetric analysis."

Keller found the verdict deeply satisfying. "I was afraid if we lost, term life policies would cease to exist. They are cheap protection for loved ones, and they are almost loss leaders for insurers. So we did a great public service here."

-- John Roemer