Pacific Life Seeks Dismissal of $8.5 Million Lawsuit from Kyle Busch

Pacific Life Seeks Dismissal of Kyle Busch’s $8.5 Million Insurance Lawsuit

February 6, 2026 — Pacific Life Insurance Company has filed to dismiss an $8.5 million lawsuit brought by NASCAR driver Kyle Busch and his wife, Samantha, alleging misrepresentation of life insurance policies as tax-free retirement vehicles. The suit is under consideration by a federal court in the Western District of North Carolina, the same venue as a recent antitrust case involving NASCAR and Michael Jordan.

The dispute centers on five Indexed Universal Life (IUL) insurance policies purchased by the Buschs between 2018 and 2022. Pacific Life argues these policies were structured to deliver over $90 million in life insurance coverage and were not meant for short-term retirement use. The insurer emphasizes that these policies offered immediate death-benefit protection and cash value growth, contingent upon sustained funding and management.

Pacific Life asserts the Buschs failed to maintain the policies adequately, leading to their lapse or premature surrender before realizing their potential. According to the insurer, the Buschs neglected essential policy maintenance, including premium payments and value allocations, influencing the policy outcomes adversely.

Kyle Busch contends that Pacific Life and their agent did not disclose the inherent risks, alleging promises of immediate, tax-free income returns. The lawsuit claims fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair trade practices, with noted losses totaling $10.4 million.

Pacific Life maintains that the Buschs were informed of the risks through signed disclosures, which highlighted the necessity for a long-term perspective and active policy management. Policy documents stress the importance of thoroughly reviewing the policy and provide a 20-day cancellation option for a full refund.

Additionally, Pacific Life argues certain claims should be dismissed based on North Carolina’s three-year statute of limitations. They assert that, after seven years, Busch cannot claim ignorance of the policy’s details to revive lapsed claims.

The lawsuit also implicates insurance agent Rodney A. Smith, alleging he suggested high-risk products with undisclosed commissions around 35%. A court ruling on the motion to dismiss is pending.