Firm News
Insurance Company’s Complaints Against Paying Out Life Insurance Policy Dismissed
March 13, 2017
Schulte represented a consortium of investors and a securities intermediary in securing dismissal of a complaint by an insurance company contesting a $6-million life insurance policy owned by the investors. The insurance company had argued that the policy was void as a so-called stranger-originated life insurance policy because it amounted to an illegal wagering contract, and that the owners did not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured and that the trust that was created in connection with policy was void. On March 13, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah rejected every argument the insurance company put forward to avoid paying out on the policy, rejecting the company’s arguments as “meritless.” The court accepted all of Schulte’s arguments and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The insurance company sued the securities intermediary seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay the investors the death benefit under the life insurance policy they had purchased when the insured died. The insurance company also sought a declaration that it could keep the premiums the investors had paid over the years under the policy. The insurance company argued the investors had engaged in a scheme to obtain insurance on a person in whom the investors had no insurable interest — a so-called stranger-originated life insurance policy — and that the policy constituted an unconstitutional wager on the insured’s life in violation of the Utah Constitution’s prohibition on gambling. Our client countered that the insurance company’s claims were barred by the state’s incontestability statute, which cuts off challenges two years after a policy is issued. In essence, Schulte pointed out that the insurance company had waited six years too long to raise any challenge to the policy and the court agreed.
This decision was significant not only for the investors involved in this particular policy but also for the entire life settlements industry.
The Schulte team that secured this victory was led by litigation partner Harry Davis and included litigation associate Robert Griffin, with assistance from structured finance & derivatives partners Boris Ziser and Thomas Weinberger.
Related Insights
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted amendments (“Final Rule”)[1] to CFTC Rule 4.7, which is the primary disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping relief relied upon by CFTC-registered commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”). The Final Rule only partially adopted the proposals advanced by the CFTC nearly a year ago (“Proposal”). Importantly, the CFTC has elected to double the financial thresholds required for investors to be Qualified Eligible Persons (“QEPs”) suitable to invest in a Rule 4.7 pool or fund. However, the CFTC decided not to adopt the time-consuming and detailed disclosure requirements included in the Proposal. Operators of Section 3(c)(1) pools and funds that rely on Rule 4.7 will need to adjust their documents to accommodate the new QEP financial thresholds. We do not anticipate any substantive impact on operators of Section 3(c)(7) pools and funds.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.