Manulife Financial has won a ruling in a British Columbia court, in a variation on the “vanishing premium” fiasco.

The case relates to the “vanishing premium” class action settlements of the late 1990s. In this case however, although the policyholder was fed some of the same misrepresentations as the vanishing premium plaintiffs, he didn’t purchase a vanishing premium policy.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff did purchase a policy based on overly optimistic financial projections. The court case addressed the question of whether he can be covered under the same settlement agreement.

“In this case there is no issue that the defendant’s sales agent misrepresented the features of the policy; the issue is whether [the plaintiff] can obtain a remedy for that misrepresentation,” wrote the judge. “The remedy is sought in the context of a class action settlement for a misrepresentation by a sales agent that even his principal Manulife describes as ‘bizarre’. The real question is whether the misrepresentation was of a type for which this settlement agreement was designed.”

The judge, Chief Justice Donald Brenner, found that, “In this case I conclude that [the plaintiff] is seeking a remedy which is simply not available under the structure of the class action settlement.” He also noted that the court does not have the jurisdiction to change the terms of the settlement agreement so as to accommodate the plaintiff’s complaint.

The judge found that Manulife had complied with the terms of the settlement agreement, and he dismissed the plaintiff’s application to enforce a claim under the class action settlement agreement.