Feingold v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co, 753 F.3d 55

Feingold sued Hancock Life Insurance and Hancock Life & Health for damages in a putative class action over handling of unclaimed life insurance proceeds.
District court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Hancock entered into a June 2011 Global Resolution Agreement (GRA) with Illinois and other states to alter its unclaimed property procedures; Feingold was not a party to the GRA.
Mollie Feingold purchased a 1945 life policy with Hancock; Mollie died in 2006; Feingold later received a demutualization-related payment of $459 from Illinois.
Hancock paid the death benefit after proof of death was provided, which the policy required; the GRA required locating beneficiaries via DMF but Feingold argued this created duties in common law.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding Feingold had no enforceable rights under the GRA and that other Illinois law arguments were waived or unsupported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Feingold a third-party beneficiary to the GRA with enforceable duties on Hancock?	Feingold is a third-party beneficiary to the GRA and can enforce it.	Feingold is not a party to the GRA and is not a direct beneficiary.	No; Feingold is not a third-party beneficiary.
Does the GRA breach give rise to Feingold's common-law claims (unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty)?	GRA breach supports common-law damages as a beneficiary.	No enforceable duties to Feingold under the GRA since not a party or direct beneficiary.	No plausible common-law claims based on the GRA.
Was Feingold's additional Illinois Unclaimed Property Act argument preserved and viable?	Hancock violated Illinois Unclaimed Property Act by not escheating death proceeds.	Argument waived and unsupported because no knowledge of Mollie Feingold's death alleged and different funds at issue.	Waived and insufficient to state a claim.
Do the policy provisions and proof-of-death requirements defeat Feingold's claims?	The policy duties are insufficient; GRA duties apply regardless.	Proof of death is required by policy and Illinois law; payment timely after proof defeats claims.	Policy proof-of-death requirement complied with; no liability under policy terms.

Lake Cnty. Grading Co. v. Village of Antioch, 985 N.E.2d 638 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (strong presumption against third-party beneficiaries in contracts with government bodies)
Bergman v. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 654 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (incidental beneficiaries generally cannot enforce government contracts)
Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (limited exterior documents can be considered on a motion to dismiss if central to claims)
Am. Country Ins. Co. v. Bruhn, 682 N.E.2d 366 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (insurer's duty to respond after proof of loss statements; reasonable notice requirements)
Lluberes v. Uncommon Prods., LLC, 663 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011) (choice-of-law in diversity cases; parties' agreement governs substantive law)