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

Rhode Island Supreme Court Decides STOA Case
September 28, 2015

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island recently considered two questions of first impression: (i) whether an insurable interest requirement applies to an annuity with a death benefit, and (ii) whether an immediate incontestability provision is enforceable as a matter of public policy.

In what the court characterized as a "rapacious investment scheme," the defendants in Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. ADM Associates purchased and named themselves as beneficiaries of Freedom Premier III annuities with a Double Enhanced Death Benefit, which virtually guaranteed a risk-free investment. "The macabre sine qua non of the investment strategy" was that the defendants paid terminally ill individuals, identified through advertising to hospice patients, to serve as annuitants. Western Reserve’s suits challenging the annuity purchases as void ab initio for lack of an insurable interest were dismissed, and on appeal the First Circuit certified the controlling questions to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

A divided court held that (i) neither Rhode Island’s longstanding common law nor more recent statutory insurable interest law applied to annuities; (ii) the 2009 Life Settlements Act was silent as to annuities and stranger-originated annuity transactions, and therefore does not govern the scheme; and (iii) the transactions were not wagering contracts (a ruling disputed in the two-justice dissent).

The court also held the immediately-effective incontestability clause enforceable. While the court recognized the ruling might "allow a perpetrator of fraud to profit from the fraudulent behavior," its precedents have long held that "an incontestability clause is effective even against a defense of fraud."

The ruling raises questions regarding the application of insurable interest statutes and common law protections to annuity transactions, and additional legislative efforts may be required to extend to annuities the longstanding protections available to life insurance policies.
Related Practices
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Litigation
©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.