New Minnesota Law Allows Investors to File Lawsuits Seeking to Validate Life Insurance Policies Before They Mature

In most states, carriers may void life insurance policies for lack of insurable interest at any point, even after the two-year contestability period prescribed by statute. This loophole allows insurers to continue collecting premiums on policies for which they may never pay claims, and, for life settlement investors, creates a risk of a zero return on an otherwise sound investment. 

Thanks to a new law that took effect today, however, investors may now file declaratory actions on Minnesota policies of $1 million or more in face, seeking judgments conclusively validating those policies, even though no death benefit claim has been submitted. This law is the first piece of settlement investor-friendly legislation ever passed. Orrick’s Public Policy Group, in conjunction with Fortress Investment Group, led a two-year long effort to provide investors with this novel recourse.

The law specifically provides that a policy’s “owner of record,” or the trustee that owns the policy on behalf of an investor, has two years to seek a declaratory judgment that the policy had a valid insurable interest at inception. Additionally, the law does not require an investor to wait to seek validation until the insurer attempts to rescind the policy. Instead, the policy owner simply must have a good faith belief that the insurer will challenge the policy’s validity. The law applies only to the owners of policies at the time of their enactment. However, as investors generally hold policies through intermediaries, the transfer of an interest does not extinguish the rights granted under the legislation.

This Minnesota law is a milestone for investors against insurers’ efforts to invalidate policies on insurable interest grounds. Notably, it follows on the heels of case law with similar implications in Delaware (Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSH, et al. v. PHL Variable Insurance Company and Phoenix Life Insurance Company) and New York (CSSEL Bare Trust v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company), which provide investors with the certainty of knowing whether death benefits will be paid before potentially paying substantial sums in premiums to keep their policies in effect.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.