- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE _________________
DISTRICT OF _________________
________________ DISTRICT
)
)
)
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )
On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, ) )
)
NO.
Vs. )
)
)
Respondents/Defendants )
)
COMPLAINT -- CLASS ACTION
COME NOW Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the putative Class
described in this Complaint, and for their Class Action Complaint state and allege as follows:
1. In this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the
Class of persons identified below, injunctive relief and damages from Defendants for liability
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq. and
other pendent state law claims including fraud, violation of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, Consumer Protection Act violations, conspiracy, and breach of contract. The Class of
persons consists of all policyholders who, at any time between the years 1987 and the present,
purchased "G-HS" hospitalization and surgical insurance policies issued by _________
("_________") or "HS" hospitalization and surgical insurance policies issued by _________
("_________"), however the Class does not include any such person who becomes a Class
Member in a putative class action in Tabor et al. v. _________ et al., Case #_________ in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, if that action is certified as a Class Action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this Class Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1332.
- 2 -
3. A significant portion of the events, acts and omissions giving rise to this Class
Action lawsuit occurred in the United States District for the Northern District of _________.
Defendants may be found, have agents in, and/or transact business in _________.
a. Plaintiff, _________, resides in _______ County in the United States District of
_________.
b. Northern PARTIES
6. Plaintiff, _________, resides at _________, __________, _________,
________.
7. Plaintiff _________ resides at _________, ________, _________,
8. Plaintiff _________ resides at _________, ___________, _________,
9. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the entire Class of persons, described herein, who are
similarly situated.
10. Defendant, _________, is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters and
principal place of business in __________, _________. Through dividend payments and other
means, _________ is the recipient of premium income derived through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, including Defendants _________ ("_________") and _________ ("_________").
11. _________'s insurance company subsidiaries, including Defendants _________
and _________, operate in all 50 states.
12. _________ is the sole owner, and the corporate parent, of Defendant _________.
13. _________ is also now the sole owner, and the corporate parent, of Defendant
_________. Between 1981 and 1993, _________ was the sole owner, and the corporate parent,
of Defendant _________.
14. Defendant _________ is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in ________, _________. At times relevant to the allegations herein,
_________ conducted business and had branch offices throughout the United States, which
conduct included the sale of G-HS insurance policies and the practices concerning those policies
at issue in this Complaint.
15. Defendant _________is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. At times relevant to the allegations herein,
_________ conducted business throughout the United States, which conduct included the sale of
HS insurance policies and the practices concerning those policies at issue in this Complaint.
- 3 -
16. _________, _________, and _________ have filed consolidated tax returns, share
accounting, computer, and record keeping functions, share insurance business functions, have
common managers, agents, and employees, and/or have interlocking officers and directors.
Defendants have acted as the agents of each other and have acted jointly and in concert to
perpetrate the unlawful scheme described herein to harm Plaintiffs and the other class Members.
17. _________ manages and controls the insurance operations conducted in the name
of its insurance company subsidiaries, including _________ and _________. _________ and
_________ are commonly-controlled with regard to actuarial functions, underwriting, sales,
claims handling and other insurance functions. Many of the same policy forms, including,
without limitation the HS and G-HS policies herein, are used by _________ and _________, and
policy development responsibilities are also shared. Furthermore, _________ and _________
have repeatedly held themselves out to insureds and the public as one organization managed and
controlled through _________. For all intents and purposes herein relevant, _________,
_________, and _________ are one and the same and should be regarded as one organization.
To accomplish justice, the corporate veils of Defendants should be pierced because said veils
have been used as a part of a scheme to defraud and to justify wrongs committed upon Plaintiffs
and other Class Members.
18. Defendant _________ is Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer of Defendant _________, and Defendant _________, who formerly was an actuary
employed by Defendant _________, is now and at times relevant to the claims asserted herein
has been the Chairman of Insurance Operations for, and a director of, Defendant _________. At
various times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant _________ has also been Chairman of the
Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President of _________ and _________. On
information and belief, Defendants _________ and _________ have personally known of,
planned, devised, directed, ratified, approved, and/or condoned the wrongful conduct described
herein with regard to the G-HS and HS policies, including for their own personal financial gain.
19. Defendants _________ and _________ have both profited personally and
substantially from, and have been unjustly enriched by, the wrongful conduct described herein
with regard to the G-HS and HS policies. They have been paid direct salaries, bonuses, stock and
stock options.
20. Defendants, through officer _________ and others, developed the G-HS policy
which forms the basis of this action. Defendants, through _________ and others, wrote and
signed fraudulent correspondence regarding premium increases that was forwarded to all
policyholders.
21. Defendants authorized and approved the G-HS and HS fraudulent scheme
described herein, including, without limitation, authorizing rate increases which Defendants
knew or should have known unfairly and fraudulently discriminated against policyholders on a
basis other than the class stated in the policy contract.
- 4 -
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
22. The wrongful conduct described herein occurred at the home office level and
includes the mandate and direction from _________'s home office, upper management, and other
personnel in Oklahoma as well as _________'s home office, upper management, and other
personnel in Texas. The wrongful conduct has been directed against policyholders of _________
and _________ nationwide, including policyholders in _________, ___________, _________,
___________, acts, errors, omissions, and misrepresentations hereinafter alleged;
(c) Whether Defendants violated consumer protection law by virtue of these acts,
errors, omissions, and misrepresentations hereinafter alleged;
(d) Whether Defendants fraudulent misrepresented the G-HS and MS policies and the
rate increases on those policies;
(e) Whether Defendants fraudulently suppressed material information from their
policyholders and Members of Class;
(f) Whether Defendants placed their own interests above those of the Class
Members/policyholders by virtue of these acts, errors, omissions, and misrepresentations
hereinafter alleged, and thereby breached their fiduciary duties to said Class Members;
(g) Whether Defendants devised and engaged in a scheme to rid Defendants of
obligations on the G-HS and MS policies through post-claim underwriting, rate-ups, and/or
discriminatory rate increases, all for the benefit of Defendants and without regard for the Class
Members; and,
(h) Whether Defendants commonly and uniformly breached the G-HS and/or MS
policy contracts with their policyholders and Class Members herein.
27. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.
28. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Members of the Class would be
impractical and would create a risk of:
(a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the
Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants; and/or
(b) adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which would as a
practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the adjudications
or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
- 5 -
29. Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
with respect to the Class as a whole.
30. Questions of law and/or fact common to the members of the Class concerning the
overriding scheme of Defendants to fraudulently develop, market, underwrite, and increase
premiums on the G-HS and MS policies predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.
31. _________, particularly through Defendants _________ and _________,
aggressively and successfully marketed all across the country the _________ and _________
G-HS underage policies that were jointly developed at _________ and that were substantially
similar or the same. Throughout the late 1980s, record premiums in force were realized as a
result of the marketing, sale, and issuance of the MS and G-HS policies. Defendants sold these
policies through deceptive pricing and rates, and Defendants further maximized their revenues
on these policies with simplified underwriting at the time of policy issuance and post-claim
underwriting after a claim had been made. The combined earned premium Defendants derived
from sales of the G-HS and MS policies was in excess of $320,000,000.00 between the years
1987 and 1993.
32. Defendants implemented discriminatory premium increases and issued fraudulent
letters to policyholders and Class Members nationwide regarding the G-HS and MS premium
increases.
33. Defendants have implemented their aforesaid scheme and have, on a class-wide
basis, directed, encouraged, facilitated, and/or aided and abetted the fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, breaches of fiduciary loyalties and good faith duties, breaches
of contract, and discriminatory pricing by various means, including, but not limited to, the
following conduct:
(a) Fraudulently developing, marketing, and selling the G-HS and MS insurance
policies with no intention of honoring the initial premium amount charged, the policy contract
language, or other benefits of the policies.
(b) Preparing and distributing fraudulent advertising and sales materials to promote
the sale of G-HS or MS policies, including, without limitation, materials that promoted the sale
of said policies to persons with preexisting conditions, persons who had existing major medical
coverages, as well as persons who were otherwise uninsurable.
(c) Fraudulently pricing the initial G-MS and MS policies offered for sale, including
(1) setting the initial rates at levels grossly inadequate such that Defendants knew or should have
known to expect premium increases, (2) Defendants knew or should have known to expect
premium increases, (2) discriminating in premium increases in violation of the policy contracts
and public policy, (3) fraudulently advising policyholders in correspondence
regarding premium increases, and, (4) withholding implementation of premium increases while
- 6 -
continuing to sell policies at the lower rate without disclosing that Defendants had already
enacted large premium increases but delayed application of those increases to new policyholders
until after they had purchased the G-HS or MS policy;(d) Failing to disclose material facts concerning the G-HS and MS policies,
including, without limitation, (1) that the policies were "experimental" in nature, (2) that large
premium increases were expected and, in fact, already in the process of being implemented at the
time of the sale, (3) that premium increases would be discriminatory as to substandard risk
policyholders and raised on a basis other than class-wide basis, (4) that adverse substandard
experience would be included in loss ratios used to justify large premium increases, (5) that, at
the time policyholders purchased the policy, Defendants had already decided to close blocks of
G-HS policies and MS policies, (6) that the policies had been designed as primarily standard
policies but marketed and sold as primarily substandard policies; and, (7) that the policies
contained benefit limitations and restrictions based on the policies' application and
Defendants' underwriting and claims practices; (e) Engaging in wrongful conduct against G-HS and HS policyholders on a
Class-wide basis with regard to systematic delays in payment of claims, improper denials of
claims, wrongful rescissions and rate-ups, and post-claim underwriting;
34. A Class Action under Rule 23 is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
(a) The Named Representatives have the same interest based on common facts and
law as other Members of the Class, and said Representatives will vigorously prosecute this
action on behalf of the Class.
(b) It is desirable to concentrate the litigation in this forum because the damages
suffered by individual Members of the Class may be relatively small, possibly under $30,000.00
average per Class Member, and the expense and burden of individual litigation make it
impractical for individual Class Members to pursue separate litigation; and
(c) No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this litigation as
a Class Action.
35. Plaintiff _________ purchased a G-HS 1 policy in 1988. Mr. _________ gave
up an in-force health insurance policy to purchase the G-HS policy, letting his old policy lapse
after the pre-existing condition period on the G-HS policy had expired because his policy had
been "rated up" for prior health problems, Mr. _________, like all other sub-standard class
members, later incurred discriminatory premium increases implemented nationwide by
Defendants. Mr. _________ was ultimately forced to drop the G-HS policy due to premium
increases and has incurred medical costs and expenses since that time. Because of health
conditions, Mr. _________ cannot obtain appropriate and suitable health insurance.
36. Plaintiff _________ has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff _________, along with the other nominal
- 7 -
Plaintiffs herein, also seeks mandatory injunctive relief for himself and all other Members of the
Class.37. Plaintiff _________ purchased a G-HS 1 policy in 1988. Her premiums have
increased by over 220% since she purchased the policy. Because of her current health, Ms.
_________ cannot obtain other appropriate health insurance.
38. Plaintiff _________ has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff _________, along with the other nominal Plaintiffs
herein, also seeks mandatory injunctive relief for herself and all other Members of the Class.
39. Plaintiff _________ also purchased a G-HS 1 policy. His premiums have
increased by over 250% since he purchased the policy. He has recently been forced to drop the
policy because he cannot afford it. Because of his current health, Mr. _________ cannot obtain
other appropriate health insurance.
40. Plaintiff _________ has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff _________, along with the other nominal
Plaintiffs herein, also seeks mandatory injunctive relief for herself and all other Members of the
Class.
41. The Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class and predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members.
42. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in Class
Action litigation, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.
COUNT I: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT --1962(c)
43. Paragraphs 1-42 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
44. 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity."
45. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendant _________ may constitute the
enterprise, the affairs of which consist of the insurance operations of its subsidiaries, Defendants
_________ and _________. _________ is an enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which
affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
46. Defendant _________ is Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer of Defendant _________, and Defendant _________ is Chairman of Insurance
Operations for, and a director of, Defendant _________.
- 8 -
47. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants _________, _________,
_________, _________, and _________, associated together in fact as an enterprise to defraud
Plaintiffs and Class Members in the development, marketing, and discriminatory and arbitrary
pricing under the G-HS and MS policies. Defendants' association in fact engaged in, or affected,
interstate or foreign commerce.
48. Defendants _________, _________, _________, _________, _________,
_________ and _________ associated together in fact as an enterprise to commit each of the
fraudulent predicate acts described herein. The purpose of Defendants' enterprise included the
generation of massive premium dollars through huge sales of the fraudulently-priced G-HS and
MS policies.
49. From approximately 1987 through the present, Defendants _________,
_________, _________, _________, and _________ have associated together in fact and
unlawfully, willfully and knowingly affected interstate commerce through a conspiracy to
conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, a pattern of racketeering activity as defined i n
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and 1961(5). Defendants participated in an association in fact and in
Defendant _________ to commit multiple acts of racketeering, as are described herein.
50. Defendants, with fraudulent intent, used the mails and interstate electronic
communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 18 U.S.C. l343, in furtherance of the
aforesaid common and uniform schemes to defraud members of the Plaintiff Class.
51. Defendants planned and executed the scheme described herein by using the
_________ mails and interstate electronic communication in order to defraud Plaintiff
policyholders.
52. Defendants controlled the enterprises that conducted each of the fraudulent
predicate acts enumerated herein.
53. The fraudulent acts enumerated herein took place continuously from 1986 to
present.
54. The fraudulent acts enumerated herein are not isolated events, but instead form a
pattern of misrepresentation and fraudulent activity with the intent to injure Plaintiff
policyholders.
55. The fraudulent acts enumerated herein have caused the Plaintiff policyholders to
suffer injury, including, without limitation, loss of money due to increases in premiums and loss
of the coverage benefits and value promised when the G-HS and MS policies were purchased.
56. Said injuries were suffered by Plaintiffs and Class Members because Defendants
formed an Enterprise and/or utilized Torch mark as an Enterprise for implementing the
fraudulent acts enumerated herein.
- 9 -
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT II: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT --1962(a)
57. Paragraphs 1-56 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
58. 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) makes it unlawful "for any person who has received any
income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity . . . to use or invest,
directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of
any interest in, or the establishment of operation of, any enterprise."
59. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants received income derived from a
pattern of racketeering activity and used said funds to acquire interest in and to operate the
_________ Enterprise.
60. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants received income derived from a
pattern of racketeering activity and used said funds to acquire interest in and to operate other
enterprises, including, without limitation, _________.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT III:
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT -- 1962) 61. Paragraphs 1-60 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
62. 18 U.S.C. §1962~) makes it unlawful "for any person, through a pattern of
racketeering activity, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of
any enterprise."
63. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants received income derived from a
pattern of racketeering activity and used said funds to acquire or maintain interest in and control
over the _________ Enterprise.
- 10 -
64. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants received income derived from a
pattern of racketeering activity and used said funds to acquire or maintain interest in and control
over other enterprises, including, without limitation, _________.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT IV:
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT --1962(d) 65. Paragraphs 1-64 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
66. 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) makes it unlawful "for any person to conspire to violate any
of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c)" of §1962.
67. Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C.
§1962(a), 18 U.S.C. §1962~), and 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT V - BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
68. Paragraphs 1-67 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
69. By the actions of Defendants described above, Defendants failed to exercise the
utmost good faith and loyalty in discharging their contractual responsibilities under Plaintiffs'
and the other Class Members' G-HS and MS policies.
70. By the actions of Defendants which occurred largely in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma as described above, Defendants tortiously and intentionally breached their duty of
good faith and fair dealing which they owed to Plaintiffs and to all Members of the described
Class, damaging them in the manner described above.
- 11 -
71. The tortious actions of Defendants were accompanied by fraud, oppression and a
willful and wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the Members of the described Class,
justifying an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT VI- FRAUD
72. Paragraphs 1-71 are incorporated and re-alleged as if separately restated.
73. As set forth above, Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class described herein were
induced to purchase G-HS and MS insurance policies by common misrepresentations and
omissions of material fact originating at Defendants' home office in Oklahoma and/or Texas.
74. The misrepresentations and omissions regarding the G-HS and MS policies were
a part of the fraudulent scheme of Defendants and were made in furtherance of Defendants'
intent and purpose in implementing the scheme. The material facts omitted were withheld by
Defendants with knowledge of their materiality.
75. Plaintiffs/Class Members were damaged as a result of the misrepresentations and
omissions as described above.
76. Neither the named representatives nor the other Class Members were aware of the
omissions or the other wrongful conduct against them described elsewhere herein, or that they
had a basis or right to sue Defendants at any time prior to a year before the filing of this action.
Additionally, Defendants have concealed their wrongful conduct from the nominal Plaintiffs in a
manner which is common and typical of the concealment from the entire Class which the
nominal Plaintiffs represent.
77. An award of substantial punitive damages against each Defendant, commensurate
with their size, wealth and culpability, is justified.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
COUNT VII - BREACH OF CONTRACT
- 12 -
78. Paragraphs 1-77 are incorporated and re-alleged as if separately restated.
79. Plaintiffs and Defendants were parties to contracts, which comprise the G-HS and
MS insurance policies.
80. By virtue of the aforesaid conduct, Defendants commonly and uniformly violated
the G-HS and MS insurance policy contracts with Plaintiffs and Class Members.
81. As a result of Defendants' aforesaid conduct and contractual breaches, Plaintiffs
and all Class Members have suffered damages including addition premium payments and loss
of insurance benefits.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, and that Plaintiffs
receive such other relief as the Court deems proper and just under the circumstances including
payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this suit.
COUNT VIII - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
82. Paragraphs 1-81 are incorporated and re-alleged as if separately restated.
83. Defendants' practices and conduct described above constitute acts or practices
which are declared to be unlawful under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 Okla. St.
§761.1(A) and/or other similar Acts, and Plaintiffs and the Members of the described Class are
persons under that Act who have been damaged in the manner described above.
84. Defendants' practices and conduct described above violates the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act pursuant to 15 Okla. Stat. §753, including, without limitation,
subsections 5, 7, 8,11, 20.
85. Defendants' practices and conduct described above include omissions and other
practices that have deceived or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead a person to
the determinant of that person, including Plaintiffs and each other Member of the Class, and, as
such, Defendants' actions described above constitute deceptive trade practices pursuant to 15
Okla. Stat. §752(11)
86. Defendants' practices and conduct described above include practices which offend
established public policy. In addition, Defendants' conduct described above is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially injurious to consumers, including,
without limitation, Plaintiffs and each other Member of the Class. As such, Defendants actions
described above constitute unfair trade practices pursuant to 15 Okla. Stat. §752(12).
87. Plaintiffs are entitled to penalty damages because the actions of Defendants
described above are unconscionable pursuant to 15 Okla. Stat. §761.1(B), including, without
limitation, that:
- 13 -
a) Defendants knowingly and/or with reason to know took advantage of customers,
including Plaintiffs and the other Members of the Class, who were reasonably unable to protect
their own interests in light of Defendants' common and deceptive conduct; and,
(b) Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the conversions Defendants
induced customers, including Plaintiffs and the other Members of the Class, to enter were
excessively one-sided in favor of Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, for penalty
damages, for reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court
deems proper and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses
incurred in filing this suit.
COUNT IX - CONSPIRACY
88. Paragraphs 1-87 are incorporated herein and re-alleged as if separately restated.
89. Defendants have engaged in a civil conspiracy with one or more persons,
including other persons and/or corporations, to defraud and damage their policyholders in the
manner described above. Plaintiffs and all Class Members have been damaged as a result of
Defendants' unlawful conspiracy.
90. Defendants agreed on unlawful means or objectives including, but not limited to,
fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, breaches of good faith and fiduciary duties, unfair
and deceptive practices, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act, all as alleged herein.
91. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants have met together and with others,
exchanged various reports, memos, letters and other documents, and directed subordinates in
carrying out the objectives of the conspiracy. Officers, managers agents, and/or employees of
Defendants have likewise met among themselves and exchanged information, made plans to
carry out the objectives of the conspiracy and taken steps to carry out these objectives, which
steps have been previously set forth herein.
92. Defendants' actions justify an award of substantial punitive damages against each.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Judgment be granted against Defendants in an
amount that is fair and reasonable, for injunctive relief restricting future premium increases on
G-HS and MS policies, together with prejudgment interest as provided by law, punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and that Plaintiffs receive such other relief as the Court deems proper
and just under the circumstances, including payment of costs and expenses incurred in filing this
suit.
Respectfully Submitted,
- 14 -
___________________________
