What if an insurance carrier was sued for allegedly opening unauthorized accounts for its existing policyholders? Say that this hypothetical carrier used its policyholders' private identifiable information (Social Security numbers and the like) that it already had on file because the people involved were its existing policyholders. Suppose further that this imaginary insurance company issued policies for coverages the policyholders never agreed to pay for, such as if a particular policyholder had a homeowner's policy, for example, but the mythical carrier also issued policies in the name of that policyholder for property, auto liability, and CGL coverages? Then maybe its employees closed down and cancelled these unauthorized policies after they, the employees (perhaps its captive agents), got on-the-job credit from the carrier for issuing so many policies?
Then suppose at last that the carrier's lawyers filed a demand for arbitration of the policyholders' understandable complaints, on the ground that even though the new policies were never authorized still they somehow 'arise out of' the policyholders' existing policies issued by that carrier? What kind of publicity do you think that carrier or any carrier making such a demand would get for its trouble?
In a case in Utah, customers of Wells Fargo allege something very similar. They allege that Wells Fargo opened unauthorized accounts in the customers' names using the customers' privately identifiable information, and that they, the customers, were damaged in various ways as a result. Download Mitchell v. Wells Fargo, Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Filed (D. Utah No. 2.16-cv-00966-CW).
And for its part, Wells Fargo has filed a very similar motion to compel arbitration. Wells in essence alleges that because its accounts all contain arbitration provisions (and waivers of class actions and jury trials), the allegedly unauthorized accounts must be arbitrated too. Download Mitchell v. Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo M Compel ARBITRATION etc. Filed 11.23.16 (D. Utah No. 2.16-cv-00966-CW). It is not entirely clear whether Wells's attorneys are arguing in this motion that the customers agreed to arbitration when they opened their pre-existing accounts, or that the customers somehow 'agreed' to arbitration when the accounts they did not authorize were opened at Wells.
Either way, just as for our hypothetical insurance carrier here, the publicity as expected has been lousy since this motion was filed. Perhaps that is why Wells's lawyers filed it sometime on the day before Thanksgiving.
Please Read The Disclaimer. Copyright 2016 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments