Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Conestoga Trust Services, LLC (PLR1)
Case Number:
3:14-cv-00539
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
-
July 12, 2017
Sun Life Doesn't Have To Pay On 'Void' Policy, Judge Says
A Tennessee federal judge held Wednesday that a trust cannot collect on the proceeds of a $2 million life insurance policy issued by Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, agreeing with the insurance company that the policy was originally procured through an illegal scheme engineered by individuals lacking an interest in the insured's life.
-
March 08, 2016
Sun Life Can't Prove Illegal Insurance Scheme, Court Told
A trust told a Tennessee federal court Tuesday that it should be allowed to collect on the proceeds of a $2 million life insurance policy that Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada alleges was procured through an illegal scheme, asserting the life insurer has yet to produce any evidence of such a scheme.
-
September 29, 2015
Sun Life Insurance Scheme Suit Needs More Evidence: Judge
A Tennessee federal judge on Tuesday refused to allow a trust to collect on the proceeds of a life insurance policy that Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada alleges was procured through an illegal scheme, finding that there is insufficient evidence at this point in the case to decide whether the policy is fraudulent.