Landreneau v. National Affiliated Investors Life Insurance
692 So.2d 464 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Fraud consists of a misrepresentation or suppression of the truth made with the intent to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss to another. A party's fraudulent intent can be established by a preponderance of the evidence, including circumstantial evidence drawn from sales materials, verbal representations, and subsequent bad faith actions.
Facts:
- Glenwood and Maffie Landreneau sought a retirement investment program and explicitly stated they were not interested in purchasing more life insurance.
- A sales representative for National Affiliated Investors Life Insurance Co. (NAIL), Marie Jenke, presented them with a product called the Financial Lifetime Accumulator Contract (FLA-100).
- Jenke and NAIL's sales brochure described the FLA-100 as a 'contract,' not a policy, and emphasized it was a profit-sharing investment vehicle that would supplement existing insurance.
- The brochure promised that contract holders would share in 'no less than 50% of the total statutory profits of the company each year.'
- Relying on these representations, the Landreneaus purchased several FLA-100 contracts on June 13, 1988, eventually investing a total of $26,860.00.
- After two years of receiving dividends, the payments stopped.
- Years later, a NAIL representative informed the Landreneaus that the company had reorganized and they would no longer share in the profits of the entire company, but only in the much smaller profit pool of the FLA-100 contract group.
- The Landreneaus were never personally notified of this material change to the dividend structure; the company only sent out a general mail publication.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 10, 1995, Glenwood and Maffie Landreneau filed suit against National Affiliated Investors Life Insurance Co. (NAIL) in a Louisiana trial court, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court issued a judgment on June 6, 1996, in favor of the Landreneaus.
- The trial court ordered the contract rescinded, requiring NAIL to return the $26,860.00 invested by the Landreneaus, and also awarded the Landreneaus $10,000.00 in attorney's fees.
- NAIL, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurance company commit fraud when it markets and sells a life insurance policy primarily as a retirement investment contract, using misleading materials and sales tactics to induce a purchase from customers who expressly stated they were not seeking more life insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, Judge
Yes. An insurance company commits fraud when it intentionally misrepresents a life insurance policy as a retirement investment to induce a sale. The court found that NAIL's entire marketing scheme was crafted to defraud unsuspecting purchasers. The sales materials and the representative's sales pitch cleverly avoided the term 'life insurance policy,' instead focusing on profit-sharing and investment aspects to appeal to the Landreneaus' stated goals. The court reasoned that the Landreneaus were induced to purchase the FLA-100 under false pretenses, as they believed the primary purpose was investment, not insurance. Furthermore, NAIL's subsequent action of changing the dividend payment structure without providing personal notification to investors demonstrated bad faith and was indicative of the company's fraudulent intent from the outset. Because fraud was established under La.Civ.Code art. 1953, the trial court's rescission of the contract and award of attorney's fees under La.Civ.Code art. 1958 were proper.
Analysis:
This case illustrates how courts will look beyond the technical language of a contract to the substance of how a product was marketed and sold to determine fraudulent intent. The decision confirms that a pattern of misrepresentation, from sales brochures and verbal pitches to subsequent actions like non-disclosure of material changes, can establish fraud. It serves as a precedent against using complex or hybrid financial products to mislead consumers about their true nature. The ruling reinforces that a finding of bad faith or fraud can trigger not just rescission of the contract but also liability for the other party's attorney's fees.
Unlock the full brief for Landreneau v. National Affiliated Investors Life Insurance