John is the co-leader of the firm’s Insurance Disputes practice group. He has represented some of the largest life insurance companies in the United States, including Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), Jackson National, and Voya. His practice includes defending life insurance companies in class actions, opt-out suits, and regulatory matters.
John has defended insurance companies against claims that cost of insurance rates in universal life insurance policies should have been decreased as mortality allegedly improved. He has also defended insurance companies that have redetermined cost of insurance rates. Additionally, he has challenged the validity of multimillion-dollar life insurance policies where the insureds lied on their applications regarding their net worth as part of a scheme to benefit unrelated investors who lacked an insurable interest in the lives of the insured.
Recently, John obtained dismissal of a putative class action seeking premium refunds of planned premiums for universal life insurance policies under a New York insurance statute. The district court granted BSF’s motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question of law to the New York Court of Appeals. In October 2023, the New York Court of Appeals held that the statute does not apply to planned premiums for universal life insurance policies, issuing the first decision by a New York court interpreting the statute since it was enacted 100 years ago.
John represented Starr International Company, headed by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, in a federal lawsuit brought by American International Group seeking, among other things, billions of dollars of Starr's AIG stock and other assets. Starr won summary judgment on most of AIG's claims and won a unanimous jury verdict on AIG's remaining claims after a 16-day trial.
John defended a major credit card network during a seven-week bench trial against antitrust claims by the U.S. Department of Justice relating to the network’s contractual provisions with merchants. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision instructing the trial court to enter judgment in the network’s favor.