Pacific Life Insurance Moves to Dismiss Kyle and Samantha Busch's $8.5 Million Lawsuit, Citing Contractual Agreements and Prior Legal Precedent

Pacific Life Insurance has formally requested the dismissal of an $8.5 million lawsuit filed by two-time NASCAR Cup Series champion Kyle Busch and his wife, Samantha. In a legal filing submitted to Judge Matthew E. Orso of the Western District of North Carolina, the insurance giant argues that the Buschs’ claims are "inflammatory and disingenuous" and lack any evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of Pacific Life. The lawsuit, initially filed in state court before being transferred to federal jurisdiction, centers on allegations that the company and an independent agent, Rodney A. Smith, misrepresented a complex life insurance policy as a "tax-free retirement plan" capable of self-funding retirement income.

At the heart of the dispute is an Indexed Universal Life (IUL) policy, a financial product that combines a death benefit with a cash value component. The growth of this cash value is typically linked to a stock market index, often with provisions designed to offer some protection against market downturns. The Buschs contend that they were misled by misleading illustrations, undisclosed costs, and outright falsehoods regarding the policy’s performance. They claim to have lost $8.58 million from a premium payment structure totaling $10.4 million. Specifically, Kyle Busch alleges he was promised that an annual payment of $1 million over five years would yield an annual withdrawal of $800,000 starting at age 52. He asserts that he discovered the significant depletion of his funds only upon receiving a sixth premium notice.

Pacific Life, however, counters these accusations by asserting that the Buschs purchased the policy under the guidance of their own legal counsel and subsequently failed to manage it appropriately. The company’s filing emphasizes that the Buschs had access to a "team of their own professional advisors" and yet "failed to manage their Policies." Pacific Life’s legal team argues that the plaintiffs’ claims disregard "clear, repeated, and explicit disclosures" that indicated illustrated values were "not guaranteed" and that the policies would not be "paid up" after only five annual premium payments. The insurer also points out the substantial life insurance coverage provided to the Buschs, including a significant policy on Kyle Busch’s life during his high-risk racing career, noting that there is no legal basis for a refund of all premiums.

Furthermore, Pacific Life is leveraging a previous legal ruling in its motion to dismiss. The company argues that Judge Orso should reject the Buschs’ lawsuit due to its striking similarities to a prior case, Stegelin v. Pacific Life. In that case, a similar Pacific Discovery Xelerator (PDX) policy, also an IUL product, was purchased in 2018 by individuals represented by the same attorney as the Buschs, Robert Rikard. The Stegelin plaintiff had alleged that a producer misrepresented the policy as a strategy for "tax-free" retirement income and that he was induced to purchase it based on alleged misrepresentations in illustrations regarding future performance.

Related News :

The court in Stegelin dismissed the misrepresentation claims with prejudice, finding that "Pacific Life’s conspicuous and repeated disclaimers that all non-guaranteed elements in the illustration were not guaranteed refute [plaintiff’s] theory." The court further ruled that because the illustrations included written disclosures that negated any claim of reliance, any such reliance would not be justifiable as a matter of law. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, a precedent Pacific Life believes is directly applicable to the Busch case.

Pacific Life refutes the Buschs’ assertion that they could not comprehend the "real-world operation of the policies." The insurer highlights that their policy disclosures fully detail charges against premiums over a 10-year period and project resulting cash values annually. The company also contends that the majority of the claims in the lawsuit are time-barred, falling outside the four-year statute of limitations. The trust documents were executed on April 3, 2018, following an initial contact by agent Rodney A. Smith in 2017. The Buschs’ complaint had previously alleged that Smith presented himself as a "wealth management and insurance specialist" and a "retirement planner."

Pacific Life outlines several key reasons for its motion to dismiss. Beyond the lack of wrongful conduct and the precedent set by the Stegelin case, the insurer emphasizes that the Buschs acknowledged and agreed to specific terms within their policy applications. These agreements included a confirmation that the policy would meet their insurance needs and financial objectives, based in part on their personal circumstances, and that the producer was solely responsible for ensuring the policy’s suitability.

Crucially, the applications also contained explicit acknowledgments regarding policies with indexed features. The Buschs, by signing, affirmed their understanding that such products track the gains and losses of an external financial index, subject to caps or floors. They also acknowledged that while policy values might reference an external index, they did not directly participate in stock or equity investments, and that values shown, other than minimum guarantees, were not promises or warranties. Pacific Life asserts that both Kyle and Samantha Busch signed these documents, including agreements to pay planned premiums and maintain the policies for at least 30 years, through age 70 and beyond.

The insurance company argues that instead of adhering to the long-term strategy outlined, the Buschs failed to make timely premium payments, did not adequately monitor the allocation of their policy values between indexed and fixed accounts, and ultimately surrendered the policies or allowed them to lapse. Pacific Life contends that the Buschs are attempting to shift blame for their negative financial outcome onto the IUL product rather than accepting responsibility for their own decisions.

In essence, Pacific Life argues that the Buschs acknowledged their understanding of the policy’s mechanics and cannot now claim a fundamental mistake occurred seven years after their decisions, particularly when those decisions did not yield the desired results. The company invokes the legal principle that a plaintiff cannot circumvent the statute of limitations through willful blindness, stating, "A man should not be allowed to close his eyes to the facts readily observable by ordinary attention, and maintain for his own advantage the position of ignorance."

Pacific Life further highlights that each of the five policies came with a cover letter prominently stating in bold capital letters, "READ YOUR POLICY CAREFULLY." Additionally, each policy offered a 20-day refund window, a provision the Buschs never sought to utilize. The insurance provider is thus seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, asserting that the Buschs’ claims are without merit and should not proceed to trial.