Second Circuit Reverses Class Certification in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
On August 11, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a class certification and lower court judgment in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (Docket No. 25-1760), ruling that the named plaintiffs failed to satisfy the typicality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) because their direct contract privity was not shared by a substantial portion of the class.
The underlying litigation involves life insurance policyholders who sued Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. According to court records, the plaintiffs claimed that the companies wrongfully deducted inflated cost of insurance charges from the value of their policies. The lead plaintiff originally purchased her policy from Connecticut General before business acquisitions shifted administration to Lincoln. This Connecticut action overlapped with three parallel class actions filed in Pennsylvania and New York against Lincoln and related corporate entities, all targeting similar overcharging allegations.
The Path to Settlement and Objector Appeals
Years of contentious litigation eventually produced a proposed settlement agreement between the primary litigants in the Connecticut case. This settlement sought to resolve the Connecticut action alongside the related proceedings in New York and Pennsylvania. However, the proposal triggered immediate resistance.
Certain class members hailing from the related actions filed formal objections. They argued that the settlement class failed foundational certification standards. Specifically, the objectors pointed out that the named plaintiffs held policies issued directly by Connecticut General or Lincoln, granting them straightforward privity of contract. By contrast, many broader class members held policies issued by separate Lincoln affiliates and faced steep legal hurdles in establishing that same direct contractual relationship. According to court filings, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut previously dismissed these concerns, certified the settlement class, approved the terms, and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The objectors promptly elevated the dispute to the Second Circuit.
Appellate Rulings on the Typicality Requirement
A three-judge panel on the Second Circuit sustained the objectors’ arguments, applying core principles from the court’s earlier precedent in Mazzei v. Money Store (829 F.3d 260, 2d Cir. 2016). The appellate court determined that the named plaintiffs could not establish typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) because their unique capacity to prove privity of contract was absent for a substantial portion of the certified class.
Because the legal standing and contractual foundations varied so starkly across different corporate affiliates, the named representatives could not adequately champion claims that required overcoming distinct privity barriers. Consequently, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s class certification order, vacated the final judgment, and remanded the matter back down for further proceedings.
As the case returns to the lower court following the mandate, the viability of a unified settlement remains uncertain. The appellate mandate forces litigants to confront the stark divisions separating direct policyholders from affiliate-held accounts, setting a definitive boundary for future class certification battles within the jurisdiction.