This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Bad Faith

Harley Frank et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Published: Oct. 27, 2023 | Result Date: Aug. 8, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 23, 2021 |

Case number: 2:21-cv-09916-TJH-PD Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Terry J. Hatter Jr.

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Matthew E. Lewitz
(Cozen O'Connor)


Defendant

Khai LeQuang
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

Janista C. Lee
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

Aaron M. Rubin
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Harley Frank filed suit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to recover life insurance benefits paid on policies that insured the life of his father, Norman Frank, a Los Angeles resident. Harley Frank alleged that in 2005, Coventry, a family of interrelated Delaware entities that procured life insurance policies on behalf of investors, procured a $5 million policy on Norman's life. Coventry could not purchase the Policy itself because it lacked an insurable interest in Norman's life. It created a trust which purchased the policy. Coventry, acting through LaSalle Bank, N.A., loaned the money to the Trust so that the Trust had capital to pay the Policy premiums. The Policy was collateral for the loan. Norman died in 2018. Defendants claimed the Policy's death benefit. In 2021, Harley alleged that the Policy was a stranger-originated life insurance policy, which Delaware deems void as a matter of public policy. Harley filed claims for unjust enrichment and recovery of insurance proceeds due to lack of insurable interest. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss for lack of statutory standing under 18 Del. C. Section 2704(b).

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Harley argued that he should be allowed to represent the estate because he was named in Norman's will and was in the process of opening the Estate.

Result

Case dismissed. The court found that Harley lacked both constitutional and statutory standing because he did not allege that he suffered a redressable injury of his own and was not the executor of the estate. Moreover, the court could not consider the will because it was not authenticated. The court also held that Harley could not later substitute the Estate as plaintiff, because Harley made no mistake when he initiated the action.


#141721

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390