Home

This website contains information regarding the class action certified by the Court in Lewis-Abdulhaadi v. Union Security Ins. Co. and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.).

Summary of Claims

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has preliminarily approved a settlement of a class action lawsuit in the above-entitled case. This is a class action on behalf of certain participants in employee benefit plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) challenging practices regarding dependent child life insurance. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the Class paid and that USIC and Sun Life received premiums collected by the employers of the plan participant for dependent child life insurance coverage under a group life insurance policy for which the dependent children were not eligible. Plaintiff filed a claim for benefits following the death of her son that was denied because her son was older than the maximum allowable age for eligibility as a dependent child under the group policy issued to her employer. Plaintiff has brought claims against USIC and Sun Life under ERISA on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals. Defendants deny the allegations of the Complaint and contend that they complied with the law and the provisions of the group life insurance policy.

Class Definition

The Class certified by the Court is defined as the following persons:

All participants in an ERISA-covered plan that provided or offered dependent child life insurance that is or was insured by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada or Union Security Insurance Company at any time from and including August 25, 2015 until March 14, 2025, and for which a participant paid premiums (or premiums were paid) for at least one child in such dependent child life insurance coverage and either (i) had no enrolled children who met the definition of dependent child under the policy while such premiums were paid for coverage (“Class Members Without Dependent Children”) or (ii) had a claim for dependent child life insurance denied because the child’s age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable policy or based on the child’s age and because the child was not a full-time student (“Class Member(s) With Denied Claim(s)”); and the beneficiaries of such persons.

Excluded from the Class are persons who are either (1) any fiduciaries of the Plans with decision-making or administrative authority related to the establishment, administration, funding or interpretation of the Plan, or (2) persons not eligible for benefits under Section IV of the Settlement Agreement [i.e., described in No. 5 of the Class Notice].

Additionally a person does not meet the requirements of Section (ii) of the Class Definition unless (a) Defendants identify that person as a Class Member With Denied Claim or (b) the claim for dependent child life insurance was denied solely because the child’s age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable policy or a claim denied solely based on the child’s age and because the child was not a full-time student.

Class Counsel

The Court has appointed the following attorneys as Class Counsel: