July 22, 2014

CDA Wealth Consulting v. Global One Re: Insurance Litigation

Who:   Plaintiffs:     CDA Wealth Consulting, LLC and Sheik “Abida” Khan

        Defendant:       Global One Financial, Inc. and American General Life Insurance Company

What:  This is the latest in our continuing series of life insurance alerts.  This case concerns a term life insurance policy, however, the complaint alleges that Plaintiffs believed they were obtaining a premium financed equity indexed universal life (EIUL) policy.  While an EIUL policy was not ultimately issued, this complaint nevertheless highlights litigation risks associated with EIUL products.

CDA Wealth Consulting, LLC (CDA Wealth) and Sheik “Abida” Khan (Khan) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed an action against Global One Financial, Inc. (Global One) and American General Life Insurance Company (American General) (collectively, Defendants) arising from Defendants’ purported breach of contract and misrepresentations relating to a keyperson equity index universal life insurance policy.  According to the complaint, Plaintiffs submitted an application to American General for a keyperson equity index universal life insurance policy, financed by a premium financing arrangement between Global One and Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs assert that one year after the policy was issued, they discovered that the policy “was amended and altered into a term policy without [their] consent, approval, or authority,” and that Global One had “unilaterally and improperly amended the subject Keyperson Life Insurance Policy from an Equity Index UL policy as Plaintiffs intended into a term life insurance policy, which was never agreed to or consented to by Plaintiffs.”  It is further alleged that “the policy’s base amount was changed to $12,338.00 with a 1.2 million term rider with an annual premium of $50,000 and a five year index with zero return.”  Plaintiffs allege that the original policy provided by American General did not have a term life insurance policy rider. 

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs sought to cancel the policy, but Global One informed them that the policy could not be cancelled without penalties.  Plaintiffs further allege that they surrendered the policy, but due to the Defendants’ breach of contract, they were required to treat the policy as a “Modified Endowment Contract, with its attendant negative tax consequences.” 

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for:  (1) breach of contract; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) fraud; (5) rescission of contract; and (6) unfair competition in violation of California’s Business & Professional Code §§ 17200. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an amount equal to or in excess of $150,000, in addition to restitution, statutory penalties, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, rescission of the policy, a determination that the premium finance arrangement was the product of fraud, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Where:  United States District Court for the Central District of  California

When:  August 28, 2013



©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author


Stephen C. Baker is a nationally known litigator and a partner and a leader of the firm's Life Insurance & Annuities Practice Group.  He represents major insurance company groups in business litigation, regulatory, coverage and claims matters.  He serves both property and casualty and life, health and accident insurers.  For several life carriers and a BGA, he is national counsel for secondary market issues.  In his secondary market work, Steve advises insurers on exposures stemming from viaticals, life settlements, non-recourse premium financing and...


About the Author

Katherine Villanueva, litigation, attorney, Drinker Biddle, law firm

Kate Villanueva is a litigator with experience representing clients in a variety of commercial disputes.  Kate works closely with clients to understand the clients’ business objectives and to achieve their goals cost-effectively and efficiently.  Over the course of her career, Kate has represented clients at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal courts nationwide.  Kate has handled many aspects of civil litigation and has extensive appellate experience, including participating in appellate arguments and drafting numerous petitions for certiorari in...

Nolan B. Tully, life insurance, attorney, Drinker Biddle, law firm

Nolan B. Tully is an associate in the firm’s Life Insurance and Annuities Practice Group. Prior to joining the firm, Nolan worked as a law clerk for the Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Nolan worked extensively on the administration of MDL-875, the asbestos products liability multi-district litigation assigned to Judge Robreno.


About the Author

Robert J. Mancuso, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Insurance Attorney

Robert J. Mancuso is an associate in the firm's Life Insurance & Annuities Practice Group.

In General. Bob earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Duquesne University School of Law in 2010, where he served as the managing editor of the Duquesne Law Review and as a senior editor of theDuquesne Business Law Journal. During law school, Bob served as a law clerk at Drinker Biddle in the Life Insurance & Annuities Practice Group. He earned his B.A. from Colgate University in 2005. He also...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.