OUTCOME: Plaintiff (my client) gained a Release of Easement
The opposing party claimed he had the right to use an easement that crossed my client's real property because of a provision in his deed. We argued that my client adversely possessed the easement, the...reby extinguishing the easement and the opposing party's right of use. In addition, my client had evidence that the opposing party told his tenants that they could use my client's adjacent parking lot as an alternative egress from his rental property, thereby trespassing on my client's real property. We negotiated a deal in which the opposing party agreed to sign a Release of Easement in consideration of my client not suing him for quiet title and trespass.
Insurance
Return of $55,000 in Surrender Fees to Client
N/A
OUTCOME: Two insurance companies returned a combined total of $55,000 in surrender fees to my client.
My client, a 78-year-old woman, suffered a significant economic injury when a life insurance agent "churned" her equity-indexed annuity accounts in violation of Ohio laws governing insurance and annuit...y contracts. Specifically, the agent: (1) unduly influenced my client to take loans against existing fully-paid life insurance policies she held with other insurers so as to pay for inappropriate equity-indexed annuities; (2) unduly influenced my client to replace existing annuities she held with other life insurance companies with inappropriate equity-indexed annuities, without complying with the requirements of Ohio’s insurance laws governing replacement of annuities; and (3) unduly influenced my client to replace existing equity-indexed annuities through repeated distributions and deposits, such that these distributions and deposits funded other existing equity-indexed annuities my client held, or such that these distributions and deposits funded the purchase of new equity-indexed annuities, all without complying with Ohio’s insurance laws governing the replacement of annuities and the suitability of such purchases.
In addition, it appeared that the two insurance companies in question failed to make any effort to maintain a system of supervision and control to review the appropriateness of these replacement transactions, or to detect transactions that were replacements of existing contracts as required by Ohio Administrative Code 3901-6-05 (E)(1)(a)-(e).
