The $3,300 per plaintiff is probably an overstatement unless the judge cut the lawyers down to $3.2 million, which I seriously doubt. If you take 30% off the top for the lawyers, you’re left with $2,283 for each plaintiff, not much more of pittance than the supposed $3,300. On top of that, there are fees for everyone who purchases annuities. The plaintiffs got their monthly payouts as agreed but the lawyers saw an opportunity to make a couple tens of millions for themselves by claiming the fees were unlawful and the money should have gone to the plaintiffs. That this had no merit was clear from the start, which is why the Hartford took a strong defense stance. As in so many cases, they had to cave because defense costs were becoming exorbitant. The plaintiffs bar calls that “shooting fish in a barrel” because the merits of the case are never an issue.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The $3,300 per plaintiff is probably an overstatement unless the judge cut the lawyers down to $3.2 million, which I seriously doubt. If you take 30% off the top for the lawyers, you’re left with $2,283 for each plaintiff, not much more of pittance than the supposed $3,300. On top of that, there are fees for everyone who purchases annuities. The plaintiffs got their monthly payouts as agreed but the lawyers saw an opportunity to make a couple tens of millions for themselves by claiming the fees were unlawful and the money should have gone to the plaintiffs. That this had no merit was clear from the start, which is why the Hartford took a strong defense stance. As in so many cases, they had to cave because defense costs were becoming exorbitant. The plaintiffs bar calls that “shooting fish in a barrel” because the merits of the case are never an issue.