Category: Regulation

Judge Upholds Jury’s $5M Verdict Against AXA in Life Settlement Case

A federal judge upheld a $5 million verdict against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. yesterday in favor of Peachtree Life Settlements and its assignee Settlement Funding. In his decision, Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan declined to overrule the jury’s finding.

On Oct. 25, a jury said that AXA must pay a $5 million death benefit on Esther Adler that the insurer claimed lacked insurable interest and was purchased fraudulently.

The judge said that the jury heard that Settlement Funding had relied on AXA’s statements that the policy’s contestability period had expired. He also said that Settlement Funding had relied on documents from AXA saying that the trust owned the policy and it was enforceable and beyond contestability.

“All of this evidence supports the jury’s finding that the Policy – and the incontestability clause – was valid and enforceable and that SF had committed no wrong in connection with the purchase, sale, repurchase or assignment of the Policy,” the decision said.

“I think the judge got it right,” said Jesus Cuza, an attorney with the law firm Greenberg Traurig in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who represented Peachtree.

“As a matter of law, the policy was beyond the two-year contestability period and the jury found that Settlement Funding and its affiliates acted in accordance with the representations made by AXA,” he said.

Jule Rousseau, an attorney with Arent Fox in New York, said in an email that despite fraud at the inception, the provider wins since AXA provided a verification-of-coverage document.

“If you have a clean settlement, you don’t have to worry about fraud in inception. The unknown fraud is a huge concern for providers and tertiary buyers. Here, they collect since they had no involvement or knowledge,” he said.

He said the decision probably will seem surprising to many others, as well as the carrier, who might have assumed that the fraud would kill the policy.

 

Source: http://lifesettlements.dealflow.com/wires/article.cfm?title=Judge-Upholds-Jurys-5M-Verdict-Against-AXA-Peachtree-Case&id=hsqcfbrpuhvievh

California outlines new life settlement broker requirements

Anyone transacting a life settlement in California will be required to notify the California Department of Insurance of the transaction within 10 days, according to new rules covering life settlement transactions.

Additionally, any agent who has been transacting life settlements for less than one year will need to complete a 15-hour life settlement training course prior to qualifying for a Life Settlement Broker license, according to the new rules. Agents who have been transacting life settlements for more than a year do not need to complete the coursework to obtain a two-year license, costing $136.

The rules, which take effect July 1, are a response to a new law, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Oct. 11, 2009, repealing the state’s viatical settlement laws and instituting new life settlement laws.

In the last few years, state regulators in a number of states have been seeking tighter regulation on life settlement transactions, hoping their efforts will curtail transactions that take advantage of the elderly.

California regulators are creating a life settlement notification form for agents to use, according to a notice issued by the agency earlier this month. All notifications will be conducted using the state regulator’s website, according to the notice.

The Life Settlement Broker course is being developed by a curriculum board, appointed by California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

As part of the passage of SB 98, the commissioner was required to evaluate whether the life insurance agent’s examination met the requirements of the new law. The curriculum board evaluated and deemed it necessary to include several life settlement questions in the life insurance licensee examination. The inclusion of life settlement topics on the exam also is scheduled to begin July 1.

Source: Insurance and Financial Advisor, 4/28/2010 (IFAWebNews.com)

New York Life Settlement Transaction Forms Due

In order to maintain the ability to operate in New York state under grandfather provisions, all life settlement providers were required to file transaction document forms by the end of last week.   While the licensing requirements do not go into effect until next month, the state required that all transaction forms be filled with the state ahead of time.  Life settlement providers are awaiting the release of the application form, which is expected shortly.  2010 will be an active year on the regulatory front as three other states – California, Illinois, and Rhode Island – implement legislation to regulate life settlements that were passed last year.

Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Life Insurance Settlement Association

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee on April 9 ruled in favor of the Orlando-based Life Insurance Settlement Association in its court battle with the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation over whether life settlement providers doing business in Florida could be forced to disclose information about their businesses in other jurisdictions. The court summarily affirmed an administrative law judge’s finding of May 7, 2009. Florida law refers to life settlements as viatical settlements.

Doug Head, LISA’s executive director, said the association’s key issue was that Florida could not require companies to report about business they conduct in other jurisdictions. “Each state has different approaches to regulation, but no one state has been established to regulate nationally for the other states,” he told BestWire. “If California asked to see all the activities going on in Florida, the Florida legislators for sure and probably the governor would be upset. And yet Florida was trying to do exactly that with regard to California. And so we saw that as an inappropriate and very broad and wrong-headed approach.”

Head said the rule, had it been upheld by the courts, would have caused confusion among providers over what to report. California regulates traditional viatical settlements that were created to help terminally ill people sell their life insurance policies, but it does not currently regulate life settlements. Florida has a law that regulates life settlements, but it calls them viatical settlements, he said. “What would you report if you were based in Pennsylvania, licensed to do business in Florida, but also do business in California?” he asked.

The court affirmed the administrative law judge’s finding that the rule that would have required viatical settlement providers to file private financial and business information was an “impermissible exercise of legislative authority and therefore invalid,” said the association in a statement. The information had detailed business activities and settlements in other states and even other nations — jurisdictions that are not subject to Florida regulation, the statement said.

The administrative law judge in the 2009 ruling found the Office of Insurance Regulation had “not met their burden of persuasion to show that the rule is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.” The association said the judge found the collection of data mandated by the OIR about the viatical settlement companies was not authorized by any statute.

Oral arguments before the appellate court were heard on Feb. 23.

(By Ron Panko, senior associate editor, Best’s Review: Ronald.Panko@ambest.com)