Jamie L. Moore

Listed in Mid-South Super Lawyers, Insurance Coverage, 2018-2019  Listed in Alabama Super Lawyers, Insurance Coverage, 2014-2015 Listed in The Best Lawyers in America®,  Commercial Litigation, 2021-2025 Insurance Law, 2017-2025 Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, 2021-2025 Litigation Insurance, 2024-2025 Litigation - ERISA, 2024-2025 Financial Services Regulation Law, 2025 Augustus Baker v. Bankers National Life Insurance Company 99-cv-5492 (Jefferson County Circuit Court, AL, filed 1999) June 26, 2002; affirmed October 11, 2002 Obtained summary judgment on all counts in a vanishing premium case in our life insurance company client’s favor. Plaintiff then appealed the order to the Alabama Supreme Court and summary judgment in our client’s favor was affirmed. James Jackson, et al. v. Conseco, LLC, et al., 4:04-979-SWW (E.D. Ark. 2004) Four policyholders and an agent brought a nationwide class action alleging our client endorsed and required agents use false and misleading sales scripts in their sales practices. We defeated plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain documents in an ongoing Department of Insurance investigation and succeeded in having the matter transferred to Illinois. After transfer, a Rule 41 dismissal was granted after plaintiffs failed to respond to our aggressive pursuit of discovery. Jesse Lightning, Sr. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, 1:07-cv-1132 (N.D. Ga. filed 2007) August 8, 2008 Obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant in case in which plaintiff alleged bad faith against a life insurer for failure to pay benefits upon the death of plaintiff’s mother. Lawrence Onderdonk, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, 2004-10-5073-E (Cameron County District Court, Tex. filed 2004) Successfully reached a settlement in a nationwide class action in which plaintiffs alleged our client offered replacement life insurance policies with fewer benefits and at a greater cost. The settlement enabled the class of more than 28,000 policyholders to revert to their original policies but did not provide monetary damages. In addition, we were able to reach a global settlement with plaintiffs’ counsel in more than 75 opt-out cases brought in Alabama, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. Philadelphia Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation, 6:01-md-1404-19-DAB (M.D. FL filed 2001) Two named plaintiffs brought a nationwide life insurance sales practices class action. While plaintiffs' motion for class certification was pending, we moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims. The Court reserved ruling on class certification and then granted our client’s motions for summary judgment in their entirety. Plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the decision relating to one plaintiff in its entirety and upheld the dismissal of all of the claims of the second plaintiff except two claims. Subsequently, after extensive briefing, the Court denied class certification. Plaintiffs sought to appeal the certification decision to the Eleventh Circuit, but their petition was denied. Ruby Sandock v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, 1:08-cv-3218 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2008) Obtained a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and unjust enrichment in a nationwide class action stemming from our client’s alleged failure to comply with the provisions of its long term care policies. With no evidence to support plaintiff’s remaining claim for breach of contract, the case was dismissed in its entirety within six months of filing. The Center for Restorative Breast Surgery, LLC, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, et al., 06-9985 (E.D. LA filed 2006) We defended an action filed by a medical provider and various patients against an insurance client in Louisiana state court, which was removed and then consolidated with 30 other similar cases against various entities related to our client. In an attempt to destroy diversity, plaintiff amended its pleadings. However, we were then able to get the medical provider to stipulate that federal jurisdiction based on diversity still existed in our case and that the case should remain in federal court. Subsequently, the medical provider dismissed the other federal cases without prejudice so that it could focus on its state court lawsuits against the other entities. Because we were the only defendant to have filed an answer, ours was the only federal case in which the medical provider could not file a unilateral notice of dismissal. We negotiated a stipulation of dismissal with the medical provider in which we were able to condition any refiling of plaintiff's claims on certain terms, including venue and the filing of ERISA claims only.