In Sheinkopf v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, Mass. Super. Ct., No. 2384CV01704 -BLS2*** (Suffolk County July 29, 2026), the Court granted Summary Judgment to Pacific Life on plaintiffs’ claims of Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Declaratory Judgment, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment.
Factual Background
In Sheinkopf, a $7.5 million second to die variable universal life insurance policy (“Policy”) was issued to the Robert Sheinkopf Family Irrevocable Trust (“Trust”) in 2006. The Policy insured the lives of Robert and Sybil Sheinkopf, who were both age 70 when it was issued. The Trustees of the Trust were the insured’s daughters, Laure Sheinkopf and Marilyn Sheinkopf Newman.
Testimony in the case revealed that the insureds, despite undergoing the effort and expense of creating a Trust, never relinquished responsibility for paying premium. As for the Trustees, they testified that they had no knowledge of any responsibilities to monitor or keep the policy in force. Unbeknownst to Pacific Life, the insureds managed the policy along with their broker/financial advisor, Sean Flynn, and together they decided they would keep the policy valued at the most minimum levels possible.
Over the course of the next 15 years premiums were deposited into the policy totaling over $580,000. Variable universal life insurance policies allow voluntary premium deposits up to a guideline premium limit. In late 2020, Mr. Flynn moved his office and provided a change of address form to his local post office. He also claimed, without proof, that he had notified Pacific Life. Both the Trust and Mr. Flynn were mailed multiple notices for a year from Pacific Life in the form of annual statements, quarterly statements, and annual premium payment reminders. The statements gave precise policy accumulation values and alerted recipients when the valuations were getting low.
On September 7, 2021, a Notice of Payment Required was mailed to the Trust with a copy to Mr. Flynn. The Notice indicated that the Policy would lapse on November 7, 2021, unless a premium deposit of $23,6771.24 was paid by that date. A Second Notice of Payment was sent on October 7, 2021, providing the same lapse warning. No premium was received and the Policy lapsed.
In August 2022, Mr. Flynn, according to his testimony, called Pacific Life to inquire about a change of beneficiary. He testified it was then that he first learned the Policy had lapsed. He was incredulous and claimed that neither he nor the insureds were provided notice of the lapse. He blamed Pacific Life for not properly recording his change of address. The insureds ultimately applied for reinstatement but were declined because of significant changes in their health. Both the Trust and the insureds filed suit against Pacific Life and Mr. Flynn. The case against Flynn was dismissed and later settled in a FINRA arbitration proceeding.
The Court’s Ruling
As to the insureds, the Court found that they did not have standing to sue Pacific Life for Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, or Declaratory Relief because they were neither parties nor intended third party beneficiaries. The only parties to the Policy were the Trust and Pacific Life. As to the Trust’s claims for these same claims, the Court held that Pacific Life did not breach the contract. Plaintiffs claimed that the breach occurred because Pacific Life wrongfully “cancelled” the policies. But there was no cancellation. The Policy lapsed by its own terms because no premium had been received.
Plaintiffs also argued that Pacific Life had to prove the lapse notices had been received. The Court found there was no such requirement and that Pacific Life had proven that they had sent the notices by regular U.S. Mail and that the notices were deemed received once mailed. Even more compelling was that during discovery plaintiffs produced copies of the very notices they claim they never received. They never provided adequate explanation as to how the notices were present in their files. The Court determined that, based on the record before it, the notices had been received directly from Pacific Life.
Plaintiffs also claimed that Pacific Life breached the contract by not granting reinstatement. The Court dispensed with that argument by referencing the plain language in the policy required that the application for reinstatement provide evidence of insurability. The careful underwriting by Pacific Life established that the Sheinkopfs were no longer insurable.
As to Declaratory Judgment, the Court found that since plaintiffs made the claim to declare the rights of the parties and that it was in the Court’s view appropriate to award summary judgment to Pacific Life that Massachusetts law permitted the Court to instead grant Pacific Life Declaratory Judgment and find that the Policy was null and void. The final judgment did just that.
Pacific Life defended against the Negligence claim by invoking the Economic Loss Doctrine. The Court found that “purely economic losses are unrecoverable in tort and strict liability actions in the absence of personal injury or property damage.” This is an important aspect of the decision because plaintiffs quite often add negligence claims to insurance disputes where there is no proof of personal injury or property damage.
Finally, the Court disposed of the Unjust Enrichment claim by finding that first, the parties’ rights and obligations were defined by valid contracts and second, that there was no proof that Pacific Life had been unjustly enriched by accepting and retaining the premiums.
J. Christopher Collins and Matthew Rickman represented Pacific Life in this matter.
***The Business Litigation Session (“BLS”) of the Massachusetts Superior Court is a special session of the state’s trial court system specially dedicated to business and commercial disputes. It includes 4 judges in two different sessions BLS1 and BLS2. The Judges rotate in and out of their assigned BLS role every 6 months. Unlike other sessions of the Superior Court litigants know that if their case is assigned to either session there are two judges that will oversee the case from beginning to end. Cases that are filed in the general sessions of the state’s Superior Court docket can be transferred to the BLS. Matters involving insurance coverage disputes are one of the many categories of cases that the BLS looks at when deciding whether a case is appropriate for the BLS docket. If a transfer is successful, litigants can usually expect a shorter time frame on the life of a case from initial pleadings to trial. The Judges in the BLS are senior members of the Superior Court and are highly respected and known for their experience in dealing with civil litigation. If you have a case that is the Massachusetts state court system, you should inquire about whether the case is suitable to be transferred to the BLS. Cases can also be initiated in the BLS if the matter meets the criteria set forth under BLS standing order. You can learn more about the BLS here.
This client alert is intended to inform you of developments in the law and to provide information of general interest. It is not intended to constitute legal advice regarding a client’s specific legal issues and should not be relied upon as such. This client alert may be considered advertising under the rules of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This client alert is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a solicitation or offer to provide products or service to any individual or entity, including to a “data subject” as that term is defined by the European Union General Data Protection Regulations. ©2026 Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
