Kansas City Life Insurance Proposes Nationwide Settlement for Insurance Rate Litigation
Kansas City Life Insurance Proposes Nationwide Settlement for Insurance Rate Litigation
Kansas City Life Insurance Company (KCL), based in Kansas City, Missouri, has recently announced a significant development regarding its ongoing litigation concerning the cost of insurance rates for certain universal life and variable universal life policies. This announcement comes as part of a strategic move to reach a comprehensive settlement intended to resolve claims made against the company in various class-action lawsuits.
On June 24, 2025, KCL disclosed that it had entered into an agreement which potentially could lead to a nationwide settlement involving the payment of $45 million. This settlement is set to address the claims of approximately 88,000 policyholders regarding the cost of insurance rates embedded in various life insurance policies such as the Better Life Plan, LifeTrack, Performer, and several others that have been active since January 1, 2002.
Background of the Lawsuit
The proposed settlement is a response to several class-action suits that allege discrepancies and unfair practices associated with KCL's insurance rates. These claims were highlighted in ongoing cases including van Zanten and Vittetoe v. KCL and others currently filed in multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The litigation has attracted attention due to the financial impact it may have on both the policyholders and the company.
While the settlement seeks to resolve these disputes, it is essential to note that it recognizes the claims of any policyholder who has been impacted by the contested insurance rates but is not currently included in the existing lawsuits. KCL has emphasized the importance of addressing all potential claims, which indicates a proactive approach to restoring trust with their customers.
Implications of the Proposed Settlement
KCL has made it clear that entering the settlement does not imply an admission of liability. According to Walter E.