The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently granted Jorden Burt's motion to dismiss a statewide class action against an insurance company client. The plaintiff attempted to allege a variation of the previously-popular "gross-versus-net" theory. Jorden Burt raised numerous defenses to the complaint, including: (1) under both the federal Truth in Lending Act and Louisiana's Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act insurers were not liable for allegedly incorrect or insufficient disclosures on loan documents; (2) insurers had no duty of disclosure to insureds regarding the existence of an agency relationship with the seller of the insurance product or the payment of commissions to such agents; and (3) all claims fell outside, and were therefore barred, by relevant prescriptive periods. The plaintiff also raised alter ego issues in the response to the motion to dismiss, but the Court was not persuaded. The Court granted plaintiff leave only to seek leave to amend the complaint, cautioning that the Court was concerned about futility of amendment and prescription, and would not permit amendment if it believed that amendment would be futile or the claims would be barred by prescription.