Life Insurance Unclaimed Property Litigation in 2014: Will Regulator Positions Withstand Judicial Scrutiny

by Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Winter 2014

American Bar Association Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice Newsletter for the Health and Disability & Life insurance Law Committees

Amidst ongoing multistate unclaimed property audits of many life insurers, and despite many regulatory settlements, the insurance industry and state regulators continue to disagree over the application of unclaimed property laws governing life insurance. These disagreements have been percolating in the lower courts and have now advanced to state and federal appellate proceedings.

A number of cases may soon be decided by appellate courts—while other cases continue to be litigated in lower courts—and any trends resulting from these decisions could have national implications. Some key questions expected to be addressed include:

  1. When do life insurance policy proceeds become unclaimed property?
  2. Do life insurers have a legal duty to use the Social Security Death Master File (DMF) to search for information about their insureds’ deaths?
  3. Are there any limits on the scope of information a state auditor may request from a life insurer during an unclaimed property audit?

1. When do life insurance policy proceeds become unclaimed property?

This is perhaps the key issue in dispute between regulators and the industry, because it defines when the dormancy period is triggered for life insurance policy proceeds and therefore when (or if) the proceeds are presumed abandoned. Unclaimed property and insurance regulators generally take the position that the dormancy period begins at the date of the insured’s death, regardless of whether the beneficiary has filed a claim or whether the insurer is even aware of a death. Insurers generally contend that the dormancy period begins to run upon the insurer’s receipt of proof of death or, in some states, knowledge of death. Two state appellate courts could decide this issue in 2014.

First, the Florida Court of Appeals will review a declaratory administrative statement issued by the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS). The case arose when Thrivent Financial for Lutherans filed a petition in an administrative proceeding with DFS, seeking a declaration that insurance contracts become “due and payable” only after Thrivent has received due proof of death. In its On October 4, 2013 Declaratory Statement in response, the DFS stated that, under Florida law, the dormancy trigger begins to run on the date of the insured’s death, regardless of the insurer’s receipt of proof of death. In re: Petition for Declaratory Statement of Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Case No. 137963-13-DS.

DFS takes the position that a life insurance policy “becomes a claim” upon the death of the insured, without more, and that the claim is “due and payable” under the unclaimed property statute—thus triggering the dormancy period—regardless of whether a beneficiary has filed an actual claim with the company. Therefore, according to DFS, the proceeds are presumed abandoned five years after the date of death and must be reported to the state. The insurer appealed the administrative ruling to the Florida Court of Appeals and filed its opening appellate brief on February 7. The Thrivent case could result in the first appellate decision to directly address the issue of when life insurance proceeds are reportable as unclaimed property.

Second, the West Virginia State Treasurer is appealing the dismissal of 63 separate but virtually identical cases filed against life insurers alleging violation of the 1995 Uniform Unclaimed Property Act as adopted in West Virginia. State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue, Nos. 12-C-287 et al. (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 27, 2013). Among other issues, the court rejected the Treasurer’s claim that the dormancy period for life insurance began running upon the date of the insured’s death, as opposed to the date of proof of death. Reading the UPA together with the state’s insurance code, the court noted that “the Insurance Code conditions an insurer’s liability upon the presentation of a claim, which requires that a claimant provide an insurer with notice giving rise to liability under a policy.” In the court’s view, “the provisions of the UPA and the Insurance Code are unambiguous and consistent with one another . . . Defendants have no obligation to surrender the life insurance proceeds under the UPA ‘until the obligation to pay arises - either upon receipt of due proof of death or once the insured reaches the statutorily imposed limiting age.’” Observing that the “due proof of death” requirement is “an essential ingredient for creating the obligation (i.e., the ‘property’) in the first place,” the court concluded that, “for life insurance proceeds, there is no ‘property’ subject to or reportable under the UPA until the beneficiary has made a valid claim and submitted proof of death or the insured obtains the limiting age.” These cases are now pending before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the state’s only appellate court.

2. Do life insurers have a legal duty to use the DMF to search for information about their insured’s deaths?

Several appellate courts will be given the opportunity to consider this issue in 2014.

This issue may be wrapped into the Florida appeal of the DFS ruling and the West Virginia cases, discussed above. In Florida, the DFS administrative ruling stated that Florida’s unclaimed property statute requires life insurers to use the DMF to seek out information on potential deaths of insureds. According to the DFS, requiring insurers to search the DMF “is consistent with the manifest purpose of [the unclaimed property statute]” and mandated by a statutory due diligence obligation. Thrivent argues on appeal to the Florida Court of Appeals that the plain reading of Florida’s unclaimed property and insurance law do not support this position.

Also in Florida but in a separate case, the same Florida Court of Appeals will review a lower court decision contrary to the DFS administrative decision. The lower court held that the Florida unclaimed property statute does not impose on insurers a duty to search the DMF. See Total Asset Recovery Servs. LLC, v. Metlife, Inc., Case No. 2010-CA-3719 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 20, 2013).

In the West Virginia appeals, the appellate court is expected to consider the trial court’s holding that “there is no general good faith requirement in the UPA [West Virginia Unclaimed Property Act] that requires insurance companies to search the DMF or other third-party database to determine when an insured has died.” State of West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue, Nos. 12-C-287 et al. (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 27, 2013). The lower court rejected several of the Treasurer’s positions as policy arguments more properly considered by the legislature, noting that the recent adoption of DMF legislation in several other states suggested that no such duty existed until such legislation was enacted.

Meanwhile, the DMF question also looms in a private plaintiff’s pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In the case below, a federal district court in Massachusetts, in Feingold v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., No. 1:13-cv-10185-JLT, 2013 WL 4495126 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2013), rejected claims that an insurer must affirmatively search the DMF. The putative class action complaint accused the insurer of using the DMF asymmetrically, by routinely searching the database to end payments to annuity clients but not using it to promptly notify beneficiaries of life policies when a policy-holding relative dies, and thus “avoiding payment of life insurance policy death benefits that are owed to beneficiaries.” The complaint alleged that the insurer was liable for damages to policy holders and beneficiaries because of these alleged asymmetric practices, even though the company had entered into a Global Resolution Agreement and settlement with various states.

The district court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the complaint sought to discard settled law by requiring payment or reporting of life insurance proceeds absent a claim on the policy by beneficiaries. Noting the case depended on “established principles of insurance law,” the court observed that “an insurance policy may require a beneficiary to furnish ‘due proof of loss,’ in this case proof of death, before paying policy proceeds.” The court held that the insurer’s practice of requiring the beneficiary to submit proof of death before payment of any policy proceeds “comports with both Massachusetts and Illinois law.” The appeal is pending before the First Circuit.

3. What information must be provided in an audit?

Several insurers have resisted providing information requested by unclaimed property auditors, and at least one case is now before an appellate court in California. In the court below, in the first litigation stemming from ongoing insurer unclaimed property audits, a California Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction in October 2013 ordering an insurer to furnish state auditors with all data and documents requested by the State in the course of an audit. Chiang v. American National Insurance Company, Case No. 34-2013-00144517 (Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cal. Oct. 9, 2013).

The state’s Controller initially challenged the insurer’s alleged refusal to produce records on its “currently in-force” policies, thereby preventing the Controller from having access to records allegedly necessary to complete the unclaimed property audit. Specifically, the Controller’s complaint alleged that the company had “failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether the insureds under their life insurance and annuity products are deceased,” and alleged that “these practices have resulted in both substantial delays in the escheatment of amounts due from the life insurance industry . . . and the failure to escheat such amounts at all.” Nearly simultaneously, the Controller moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the insurer’s alleged refusal to allow “a full, complete and accurate examination of all its books and records” in response to data requests from the Controller and his auditor. Characterizing the refusal to produce certain information as “dilatory tactics,” the Controller claimed that it “does not, and need not, accept the insurer’s word that it has, on its own, correctly identified and segregated its own in-force policies.”

In response, the insurer argued that the information at issue—data on in-force policies—could not constitute reportable unclaimed property and was therefore entirely irrelevant to the audit. The insurer also filed a four-count cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Controller is not entitled to obtain in-force policy data, (2) the Controller lacks the authority to enforce any DMF-searching obligation, (3) the Controller lacks authority to challenge or change the company’s contractual relationships with its insureds as part of the audit, and (4) that death is not the dormancy trigger under California law.

In its rulings, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction and ordered the insurer to produce information on in-force policies. The court stated that the insurer “is depriving the State of the ability to review the company’s records to identify escheatable property,” because “California’s auditor does not, and need not, accept [the insurer’s] word that it has, on its own, correctly identified and segregated its own ‘in-force policies.’” The Court also dismissed, without leave to amend, counts 2 – 4 of the insurer’s cross-complaint for declaratory judgment, which sought to present substantive legal issues regarding the DMF and applicable dormancy trigger. The court held that these issues were unripe for review and stated that the court would not “speculate as to what the Controller’s audit will reveal” or “express an opinion on the validity and scope of such hypothetical exactions.”

The insurer has appealed the trial court’s rulings to the California Court of Appeals. An appellate court ruling in 2014 may provide guidance on the scope of information that an auditor may request in an unclaimed property audit. Meanwhile, the California Controller is also litigating against several other companies; those cases are currently pending in other trial courts.


2014 may be the year when appellate court rulings provide some clarity in the interpretation of key unclaimed property and insurance statutes. Any court decisions in the industry’s favor may provide companies under audit with ammunition to resist state unclaimed property administrators. While state insurance regulators continue to scrutinize insurance industry practices regarding DMF use, the outcome of these pending suits may also affect whether these issues spill over into further litigation.



Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.