Ohio National, Foes Seek Stay of Texas Trail Commission Case Until Parallel Ohio Lawsuit Resolved
With multiple lawsuits proceeding around the country, Ohio National Life Insurance and the broker-dealers suing it for terminating trail commissions asked a Texas court to stay litigation there until an Ohio case moves forward.
November 18, 2019 at 01:24 PM
4 minute read
In the midst of multiple lawsuits accusing Ohio National Life Insurance of improperly cutting off trail commissions to brokers and agents selling its variable annuities, a Texas brokerage and the insurer have asked a federal judge to stay litigation there until a parallel lawsuit in Ohio can proceed.
The filing comes after U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of the Southern District of Ohio tossed out two related lawsuits last month. An appeal has already been filed in one of those lawsuits.
But Dlott allowed another suit, Veritas Independent Partners v. Ohio National Life Insurance, to proceed to discovery.
Given the unsettled nature of the litigation playing out nationally between broker-dealers and Ohio National and its affiliates, lawyers in the Texas litigation said it would be prudent to wait until Veritas is resolved "or at least until discovery is coordinated among the multiple cases filed around the country regarding this dispute."
The cases stem from Ohio National's decision to discontinue payment of trail commissions to brokers and agents who serviced its variable annuities from 2012 through 2018, and which it stopped selling last year.
Thousands of brokers were impacted by the decision to end the payments, which were offered to them in lieu of accepting lump-sum commissions when they sold the annuities.
Dlott dismissed two of the cases in October, writing the plaintiffs—third-party agents who were not signatories to the selling agreements—lacked standing to sue.
But she left alive the claims in Veritas, writing that the two relevant sections of the agreement "are ambiguous and possibly contradictory on the issue of whether [Ohio National] had to pay trail commissions after terminating the selling agreement without cause."
"Extrinsic evidence might shed light on the intent of the parties," Dlott wrote in allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
On Nov. 12, Ohio National and plaintiff NEXT Financial Group filed a joint motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to put that case on the back burner for now.
"This case is one of 12 suits brought by broker-dealers such as NEXT and Ohio National and/or its affiliates seeking … declaratory judgments with respect to the obligation of Ohio National under identical or similar selling agreements to pay trail commissions to its broker-dealers," the motion said.
The move will "save this court's judicial resources and save the parties substantial resources and time in litigating on separate fronts until the Veritas case is resolved or until further order of this court," it said.
The motion said both parties will keep the court apprised of the Veritas litigation status and "whether discovery in various actions are coordinated."
The motion was filed by NEXT attorney Andrew Harvin of Houston's Doyle Restrepo Harvin & Robbins, and Ohio National counsel Bill Davidoff of Dallas' Figari + Davenport and Marion Little of Zeiger, Tigges & Little in Columbus, Ohio. They did not respond to a request for comment.
Other litigation related to the trail commissions is at various stages.
In Massachusetts, Ohio National continues to fight an April ruling ordering a case into Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration.
In the Central District of California, a judge has scheduled a settlement conference for later this month.
Another case in Texas' Northern District is moving forward, as are suits in Alabama, Illinois and New Jersey.
In Minnesota, a June 17, 2020, trial date has been set.
In another Ohio case, Ohio National is suing several broker-dealers who are also seeking FINRA arbitration.
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
© 2025 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 AllForum Clause Axes $844M Case Against Reinsurer Over Deadly Plane Crash, Judge Rules
Bill Would Allow Californians to Sue Big Oil for Climate-Linked Wildfires, Floods
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Counterpoint: FLA Is Committed To the Success of Legal Professionals
- 2Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash
- 3New FCC Chair Hires Section 230 Critic as General Counsel
- 4Sylvia Favretto Elevated to Mysten Labs’ General Counsel
- 5Vanessa Roberts Avery Rejoins McCarter & English
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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