Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

32-Year-Old Death Claim Sparks Litigation
September 16, 2014

As the scope of insurers’ obligations regarding unclaimed property continues to evolve, even insurers that actively identify deceased policyholders and pay the proceeds of previously unclaimed life insurance policies are not immune from suit. In Burton v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., for instance, a California federal court recently granted in part Prudential’s motion to dismiss a putative class action challenging the insurer’s method of calculating interest rates on death benefits. The named plaintiff was the beneficiary of a $1,000 life insurance policy issued by Prudential on the life of her son who died in 1981.

Thirty-two years after her son’s death, plaintiff confirmed the death and that she was the beneficiary. Prudential sent plaintiff a check for $5,040.11— the $1,000 death benefit due under the policy plus interest. In an apparent attempt to capitalize on the high interest rates of the early 1980’s, plaintiff sued Prudential, claiming that the applicable California statute, which provides that the interest shall be "at a rate not less than the then current rate of interest" freezes the interest rate applicable to unclaimed policy proceeds on the date of death.

Plaintiff argued the "then current rate" was fixed as the current rate as of the insured’s date of death. Prudential countered that the statute merely requires insurers to credit interest at a rate no less than the rate that the insurer credits from the date of death forward on benefits left on deposit, subject to fluctuations over time.

The court adopted Prudential’s interpretation, which it found consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute, which is to discourage insurers from delaying payment. As the court reasoned, under plaintiff’s interpretation, "[i]f an insured died in a low interest rate year, insurers could be incentivized to hold onto the settlement through higher interest years to reap the excess interest."

Although limited to California’s statute, this victory may be persuasive in other states with similar statutes.
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.