Passengers Sue United Claiming Kickbacks Doubled the Cost of Travel Insurance
Consumers claim that they would not have paid the artificially inflated travel insurance prices had they known that the airline negotiated a brokerage fee with the sellers.
September 23, 2019 at 05:31 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Travelers have jumped on board a class action complaint aimed at United Airlines over claims that the company pockets an illegal kickback from third-party insurers featured on its website.
The consumers claim they would not have paid the artificially inflated travel insurance prices of Allianz or the Travel Guard Group had they known that the airline negotiated an illicit brokerage fee with the sellers, according to the complaint filed Sept. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"At no point does United disclose to consumers that it receives a commission or kickback every time a customer elects to purchase travel insurance, or that the consumers are funding this kickback," wrote plaintiffs lawyers from Glancy Prongay & Murray in Los Angeles and Levi & Korsinsky in San Francisco. "At no point during the class period did United disclose to plaintiffs, or any of the class members, the true nature of its relationship with Allianz or the Travel Guard Group or any other entity that is associated with the travel insurance offered on United's website." Plaintiffs Diana Vallarta of San Jose, California, and Lisa Salmons of Stamford, Connecticut, brought the class action claims over travel insurance they purchased within the last three years. The lawsuit follows a 2018 report from Sen. Edward Markey that claims travel insurance kickbacks have become an illegitimate, consumer-funded "profit center" for the airline industry.
Arguing that United misled them into fronting the cost of an illegal kickback, the customers are suing for unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint asserts that United has repeatedly prompted future passengers to purchase insurance with statements such as don't "ignore the unexpected" and "The top 4 reasons you need travel insurance." Customers must accept or deny a policy before purchasing tickets online, write Rosemary Rivas and Kevin Landau of Levi & Korsinsky and Marc Godino of Glancy Prongay. The plaintiffs lawyers did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
During checkout, the complaint alleges that United represents the third-party insurers as the "sole-recipients" of the travel insurance fees, without noting the payments United gets from the transaction. According to the complaint, the partnership between United and the insurers means customers pay more than they should.
"Indeed, travel insurance is available on the open market that is less expensive than the insurance offered on United's website, and often provides superior coverage, in part because the open-market insurance doesn't include any illegal kickbacks to United," the plaintiffs attorneys write. "For example, United's Travel Guard insurance is nearly twice as expensive as comparable—if not superior—plans that are otherwise available to consumers."
United did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDefense Contractor Raytheon Settles Bribery, Allegations for $950 Million
Liability Over 2018 East River Helicopter Crash That Killed 5 Heads to Jury
Families of Plane Crash Victims Cleared to Proceed in Negligence Suit Against Flight Training Group
4 minute readInvestor Claims Virgin Galactic Put Billionaire Space Race Over Safety, Netting Branson $1B
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250