MetLife Auto Insurance Settlement Costs Company $395,000

MetLife Auto Insurance

A MetLife auto insurance settlement has agreed to pay $395,000 to consumers and the state of Massachusetts, according to an announcement issued last week from state Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office. The company reportedly agreed to pay money to policyholders after facing allegations that it refused to renew Massachusetts auto insurance policies.

MetLife Auto Insurance Subsidiary Violates “Clean-in-Three” Rule

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (Met P&C), a MetLife auto insurance subsidiary that also does business as MetLife Auto & Home, faced allegations from Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office that it wrongly refused to renew Massachusetts auto insurance policies for drivers in the state.

The company reportedly terminated or non-renewed more than 2,600 policies statewide, an action that Coakley says is in violation of the state’s “clean-in-three” rule. The rule states that insurers cannot refuse to renew the policies of drivers who have gone three years without an accident or traffic violation.

Met P&C allegedly not only canceled the policies of specific drivers, but also assigned some policyholders to the state’s more expensive residual insurance market, according to Coakley’s office.

Massachusetts Auto Insurance Customers to Receive Payment

To settle the allegations with the state attorney general’s office, MetLife auto insurance has reportedly agreed to pay $345,000 to a number of consumers whose policies were terminated or non-renewed.

According to the announcement, 56 consumers who were allegedly terminated and “unfairly” assignment to the residual market will receive nearly $35,000. Another 2,583 policyholders are expected to receive about $310,000 after their Massachusetts auto insurance policies were “wrongfully non-renewed,” though they were able to find other car insurance policies.

Coakley’s offices says Met P&C also plans to pay the state of Massachusetts $50,000 to settle the allegations. It will also be required to provide records demonstrating compliance with the “assurance of discontinuance” agreement the parties filed in Suffolk Superior Court last Tuesday.

The investigation was reportedly handled by the attorney general’s insurance and financial services division.