Primerica, Inc. has been involved in a range of lawsuits and regulatory actions, and any current Primerica lawsuit list runs from a $50 million advisor-poaching case the company filed against Osaic in late 2025 to a $9.3 million settlement over Florida pension conversions, a 2024 FINRA fine, a California class action over life insurance lapse notices, and recurring public disputes about the company’s multi-level marketing sales model.
The Osaic Advisor-Poaching Suit
The most prominent recent case is a federal lawsuit Primerica Financial Services filed in Georgia against Osaic Wealth and Legacy Investment Advisors & Wealth Management. Primerica is seeking more than $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages, alleging an “illegal corporate raid” on its Hurricane, West Virginia branch.1Securities Law. Primerica Files Lawsuit Accusing Osaic of Poaching Advisors Through Corporate Raids
At the center of the complaint is Brian Collins, a financial advisor of nearly 40 years who managed about $540 million in client assets. Primerica alleges Collins acted as a “double agent,” staying at the firm after being recruited by Osaic so he could influence other advisors to leave with him, and that he formed Legacy Investment Advisors & Wealth Management just days before resigning.2Financial Advisor Magazine. Osaic Calls Primerica Poaching Suit Without Merit, Adds Primerica Advisor With $540M
According to Primerica, the departures cost the branch more than 96% of its assets under management. Six departing representatives collectively serviced about 2,800 clients with $530 million in assets and more than $184 million in life insurance policies.1Securities Law. Primerica Files Lawsuit Accusing Osaic of Poaching Advisors Through Corporate Raids The complaint also alleges Osaic used “large cash bounty payments” structured as forgivable loans to lure advisors away and induce them to breach their contracts.3InvestmentNews. Osaic Denies Poaching Allegations as It Welcomes $540M West Virginia Team
Osaic has denied the allegations and called the suit “without merit.” A spokesperson said Collins acted within his contractual obligations by refraining from soliciting former clients, preserving Primerica materials for retrieval, and relying only on personal relationships built independently over his career, and that he is serving only clients who sought him out.2Financial Advisor Magazine. Osaic Calls Primerica Poaching Suit Without Merit, Adds Primerica Advisor With $540M As of late 2025, the case remains pending.
The Florida Retirement System Settlement
Primerica’s most costly legal episode involved PFS Investments, a Primerica subsidiary, and roughly 238 Florida public employees who began filing complaints in late 2011. The claimants alleged that Primerica representatives inappropriately recommended they convert their Florida Retirement System pensions into defined contribution investment plans.4Compass Lexecon. Primerica Arbitration
Claims moved through both FINRA arbitration and Florida state court. Courts dismissed a “substantial number” of the state cases on statute-of-limitations grounds, and FINRA panels either dismissed claims or awarded less than what claimants sought, according to Primerica.5Primerica Investor Relations. Primerica Form 8-K, January 17, 2014
On January 16, 2014, PFS Investments entered a memorandum of understanding to resolve the litigation involving up to 238 claimants. The company set aside $9.3 million for the settlement and an additional $6.4 million for related costs, including prior arbitration awards, other potential settlements, and claimants’ attorneys’ fees. Settlement payments were to be funded through deferred annuities with payments beginning in 2024.5Primerica Investor Relations. Primerica Form 8-K, January 17, 2014
FINRA Fine for Supervision Failures
In July 2024, FINRA censured PFS Investments and imposed a $60,000 fine for failing to properly supervise three registered representatives who ran an outside business. Between April 2021 and March 2023, the three co-owned an independent e-commerce and digital real estate company that generated $33 million in revenue.6FINRA BrokerCheck. PFS Investments Inc. BrokerCheck Report
FINRA Rule 3270 requires representatives to give their firm written notice of outside business activities. PFS Investments knew about the venture but approved it orally rather than requiring the written disclosure its own procedures called for. The representatives continued working on the outside business for six to 11 months before leaving the firm in early 2023. PFS Investments accepted the sanctions through a consent agreement without admitting or denying the findings and paid the fine in August 2024.6FINRA BrokerCheck. PFS Investments Inc. BrokerCheck Report
California Class Action Over Life Insurance Lapse Notices
In August 2021, Kantor & Kantor moved in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to amend an existing complaint against Primerica Life Insurance Company to add class action allegations. The case, Jayson D. Palmer et al v. Primerica Life Insurance Company (Case No. 2:21-cv-00914), alleged that Primerica violated California Insurance Code Section 10113.72, which requires life insurers to give policyholders an annual opportunity to designate a third party to receive notice before a policy lapses.7PACER Monitor. Jayson D. Palmer et al v. Primerica Life Insurance Company
The plaintiffs argued that Primerica buried the notice in an online portal and alerted policyholders only through an email with the subject line “Your Annual Privacy Notice is Now Available,” which said nothing about the third-party designation right. The proposed class included California policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies lapsed because Primerica allegedly failed to comply with the requirement.8Kantor & Kantor. Kantor and Kantor Asks to File a Class Action Against Primerica Life Insurance Company
The court dismissed the entire action on April 4, 2023, following a stipulation to dismiss pursuant to a settlement. The named plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, while claims of any unnamed class members were dismissed without prejudice. Each side bore its own legal costs.7PACER Monitor. Jayson D. Palmer et al v. Primerica Life Insurance Company
Life Insurance Claim Denial Disputes
Primerica has also been in court over denied death benefit claims. A notable ruling came in 2005, when the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had favored the company in Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Ray K. Ingram, Sr. Primerica had sought to rescind a policy and deny a $104,000 death benefit after the policyholder’s spouse died from cardiomyopathy less than two months after issuance, arguing the couple had failed to disclose a pre-existing heart condition on the application.9South Carolina Courts. Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Ingram, Opinion No. 4017
The policyholder said he and his wife had verbally disclosed the condition to Primerica’s agents, who did not record it on the application. The appellate court held that under South Carolina law, an insurer seeking rescission must prove the applicant intended to commit fraud, and that with conflicting testimony about disclosure, intent was a factual question for a jury rather than something to be decided on summary judgment.9South Carolina Courts. Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Ingram, Opinion No. 4017
Pyramid Scheme Allegations and the Short-Seller Report
Primerica sells its products through a hierarchical network of independent representatives who earn commissions on their own sales and on the sales of recruits below them. That structure has drawn recurring public comparisons to a pyramid scheme, though no federal enforcement action or formal charge on those grounds has been publicly disclosed.
In April 2024, the short-selling research newsletter The Bear Cave published a report characterizing Primerica as a pyramid scheme. The report alleged that Primerica agents use recruiting scripts that obscure their affiliation with the company, that presentations prioritize recruitment over client service, and that some of the firm’s highest-producing agents engage in misleading conduct. It cited a recorded 2023 Zoom call in which a top earner raised concerns about dishonest practices, along with consumer complaints obtained through a public records request with the Florida Attorney General’s Office.10Yahoo Finance. Short Seller Targets Primerica Stock
Primerica’s stock dropped sharply the day the report was published. The company issued a press release calling the report a “misleading opinion” published with the “intent to drive down its stock price” and a “self-interested attempt to profit at the expense of Primerica’s stockholders.” Primerica said the blogger’s assertions were “false” and did “not accurately portray what Primerica’s licensed sales force does every day to assist middle-income families.” The company noted it has operated for over 47 years, protects more than 5.7 million lives, manages 2.9 million client investment accounts, and paid over $1.8 billion in claims in the year prior to the statement.11Primerica Investor Relations. Primerica Responds to Misinformation About the Company
At least one securities law firm opened an investigation into potential federal securities law violations by Primerica in connection with the report’s allegations. As of early 2025, that inquiry had not produced a public charge.