Alan E. Lansing v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2134
________________
ALAN E. LANSING,
Appellant
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-01041)
District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 26, 2005
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO AND FUENTES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed August 29, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Alan Lansing appeals the District Court’s order granting Metropolitan Life

-- 1 of 3 --

Insurance Co. (MetLife)’s motion for summary judgment. The procedural history of this
case and the details of Lansing’s claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the
District Court’s thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Lansing filed a
complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that he was
disabled and that MetLife breached a contract with him. The case was transferred to the
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had handled Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) involving allegations of deceptive sales practices by MetLife. MetLife
filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Lansing’s claim was barred by the
settlement agreement in the MDL. The District Court granted the motion, and Lansing
filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Lansing does not argue on appeal that his policy does not fall within the MDL
settlement; he only argues that the District Court failed to separate his claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from the settled class action. However,
Lansing’s own descriptions of his claim under the ADA demonstrate that these
allegations fall within the settlement. Lansing stated that “[m]y claim is that MetLife
violated ADA because I discovered a mental condition that affects my reasoning with
MetLife, simple. That I was not in the proper position to negotiate my contract.” Supp.
App. at 78a. In his opposition to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife)’s motion for
summary judgment, Lansing argued that he “contracted with Met-Life to make myself
economically self-sufficient not only in my older years, but also, if and when I became
disabled. Met-Life agreed to this doctrine when it took it upon itself to add a disability

-- 2 of 3 --

income rider to my already three-year old retirement instrument. Met-Life has failed to
make me economically self-sufficient and this is discriminating against a person with a
disability, thus violating ADA.” Supp. App. at 181a. Thus, his claim concerns his
contract with MetLife and is barred by the settlement. The Settlement Order is
unequivocal. It provides that “any and all claims or causes of action – known or unknown
– that were or could have been asserted in this action with respect to Policies [or]
Annuities...” are compromised and released. “ In addition, the Settlement Order and the
accompanying Final Judgment contain a comprehensive permanent injunction barring all
MDL settlement class members from, among other things, continuing any claim or
lawsuit relating to the claims asserted in the MDL action and/or the Released
Transactions as to any policy covered by the class action settlement.”
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --