Federal Class Action Brought by Three Massachusetts Residents
A federal class action lawsuit was filed on June 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and its subsidiaries regarding the cancellation of approximately 100,000 to 300,000 “Whole Pet with Wellness” pet insurance policies.
Case Background and Parties
The lawsuit, Silberman et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-11619-BEM), was brought by three Massachusetts residents: Don Silberman, Karen Silberman, and Netti Sternklar. The plaintiffs are represented by Justice Law Collaborative, LLC, a firm specializing in consumer protection and class action litigation.
The defendants include Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Veterinary Pet Insurance Company, and National Casualty Company. The complaint notes that Veterinary Pet Insurance Company underwrites Nationwide Pet policies in California, while National Casualty Company underwrites policies in all other states.
Core Allegations
The plaintiffs allege that Nationwide engaged in deceptive marketing practices by promising policyholders that their pets would “never” be dropped from coverage due to age. According to the complaint, Nationwide’s website previously contained language stating: “Will you drop my pet from coverage because of age? Never… We promise not to drop your pet because of age.”
In June 2024, Nationwide announced it would cancel the Whole Pet with Wellness policies over a 12-month period, citing “inflation in the cost of veterinary care and other factors.” The company stated these cancellations were “not associated with the pet’s age, breed, or prior claims history.”
However, the plaintiffs contend that the cancellations disproportionately affected older pets and those with significant medical conditions. The complaint includes anecdotal evidence from social media groups suggesting patterns in which older or chronically ill pets were more likely to have their policies cancelled. In contrast, younger, healthier pets in the same households retained coverage.
Legal Claims Presented
The lawsuit advances four primary legal theories:
Consumer Protection Violations: The plaintiffs assert violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A) and similar statutes in other states, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Multi-State Consumer Protection Claims: Count II extends similar allegations across multiple state consumer protection statutes, seeking to represent a national class.
Negligent Misrepresentation: The complaint alleges Nationwide negligently misrepresented the ongoing viability of Whole Pet policies and failed to disclose material facts about potential cancellations.
Fraud: The most serious allegation claims Nationwide knowingly made false representations about policy continuity with the intent to deceive consumers.
Class Certification Sought
The plaintiffs seek certification of both a national class and a Massachusetts subclass, defined as persons who had their Whole Pet policies cancelled within the applicable statutes of limitations. The complaint argues the proposed classes meet federal class action requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
Industry Context
The lawsuit emerges amid significant growth in the pet insurance sector. According to industry data cited in the complaint, the U.S. pet insurance market was valued at $4.99 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $15.87 billion by 2030. Veterinary costs have risen substantially, with urban veterinary services increasing 7.9% from February 2023 to February 2024.
The pet insurance industry has faced regulatory scrutiny in various states, with Washington State issuing fines exceeding $1.5 million to companies for violations across multiple jurisdictions.
Regulatory Implications
The case highlights ongoing challenges in regulating pet insurance. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners adopted a Pet Insurance Model Act in 2022; however, only seven states have adopted it in whole or in part. This regulatory gap has enabled practices that might face greater scrutiny in other lines of insurance.
Complaint Available
A copy of the complaint filed with the United States District Court can be obtained by clicking on Silberman et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al. Agency Checklists will continue to monitor this litigation and advise on any developments that may impact regulatory responses or industry practices in the Massachusetts insurance market.
