MetLife scandal
The MetLife scandal emerged in the fall of 1994 when it was revealed that sales agents at the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Tampa, Florida, were selling life insurance policies that were misrepresented as retirement savings plans. Notably, these policies did not explicitly mention that they were insurance products. Agents engaged in a controversial practice known as churning, encouraging customers to interchange existing policies for new ones under the pretense of enhanced benefits, primarily to secure higher commissions. Many of the affected individuals were healthcare professionals, including nurses, who relied on these agents for financial advice.
Additionally, there were claims concerning policies with "vanishing premiums," where customers were promised that they would no longer need to pay premiums after a certain period; however, this was not the case for many. In response to mounting allegations, MetLife denied any wrongdoing but opted to refund numerous customers for the miscommunications that occurred. By the end of 1994, multiple states initiated investigations, with nearly 40,000 customers alleging deceptive practices. Ultimately, from 1994 to 1999, the company faced thousands of civil lawsuits, culminating in a $1.7 billion settlement to resolve claims related to these deceptive sales practices. The scandal highlights significant issues in insurance sales ethics and customer trust.
On this Page
Subject Terms
MetLife scandal
The Event The nation’s largest life insurer and the second-largest insurance company misleads thousands of its customers who had purchased policies disguised as retirement plans or saving accounts
Date 1994
MetLife sales agents were alleged to have misrepresented facts about policies and deceived nearly forty thousand customers who had bought insurance policies that were disguised as high-interest retirement savings accounts. Although MetLife denied wrongdoing, over a billion dollars was refunded to most of the plaintiffs who filed a civil action.
During the fall of 1994, it was discovered that sales agents at the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) in the Tampa, Florida, had sold life insurance policies disguised as retirement savings plans or investment products. The word “insurance” was never mentioned in these particular policies. Furthermore, an industrywide practice known as churning was purposely used by some of MetLife sales agents to persuade customers to exchange old policies for newer ones, with the false claim that the newer policies were more cost-effective and offered more comprehensive coverage. It was later asserted that the underlying goal of these agents was to obtain high-end commissions at the expense of their customers. Most of the victims of the agents’ actions in Tampa were nurses and other health care professionals who resided in the state.
Aside from the practice of churning, other customers alleged that MetLife also sold policies with so-called vanishing premiums, in which the premium would not have to be paid after a given number of years. For some customers, this premium never disappeared as promised, leading to more allegations and subsequent civil suits filed against the company. Although MetLife publicly claimed no wrongdoing and that deceptive practices were never used by its employees, it did provide thousands of customers with monetary refunds for the miscommunication that took place between MetLife agents and their customers.
Impact
By the end of 1994, some fifteen states, including New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, had followed in Florida’s footsteps by opening up investigations of their own. Nearly forty thousand customers alleged that they had fallen victim to the deceptive sales tactics of some of MetLife’s agents. Those customers, including many working-class families along with thousands of senior citizens who did not receive MetLife refunds, opted to pursue the matter in civil court. From 1994 through 1999, thousands of customers filed civil actions against MetLife. The company agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle customer lawsuits regarding the deceptive sales practices.
Bibliography
Brewer, Geoffrey, and Nancy Arnott. “Can MetLife Insure Honest Selling?” Sales and Marketing Management 146, no. 3 (March, 1994): 8-9.
Hartley, Robert F. Business Ethics: Mistakes and Successes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
Meier, Barry. “Metropolitan Life in Accord for Settlement of Fraud Suits.” The New York Times, August 19, 1999, p. A1.