Menu

A Constitutional Challenge to Florida's New Unclaimed Property Act Amendments

Life, Annuity, and Retirement Solutions   |   Financial Services Regulatory   |   July 26, 2016
Download   
Share Page

In April, Florida amended its Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (“Act”) to require life insurers to perform Death Master File (DMF) searches for all policies issued since 1992. The amended Act also provides that a DMF match creates a presumption of death, which starts the Act’s unclaimed property reporting timetable based on date of death. By contrast, Florida law has long required insurance policy forms to state that death benefits are not due and payable until after the insurer receives due proof of death.

During the legislative process, the insurance industry argued the Act would unconstitutionally apply retroactively. Seeking to bulletproof the new law against this challenge, the Florida Legislature stated in the Act, “The amendments made by this act are remedial in nature and apply retroactively.” Four life insurers, led by United Insurance Company of America, immediately sued Florida CFO Jeff Atwater and Florida’s Department of Financial Services to invalidate the Act as violating the Florida Constitution’s due process requirements and its prohibition against impairment of contracts. The insurers also asked the court to enjoin the Act’s retroactive enforcement.

Three of these four insurers previously sued to invalidate a 2013 Kentucky law that also retroactively required DMF searches and used date of death as the unclaimed property reporting trigger. At trial, a Kentucky court found the law was “remedial” and thus could be applied retroactively, and that it did not impair vested contractual rights. A Kentucky appeals court reversed, finding the new law “substantive,” not “remedial,” because it shifted the burden to the insurer to obtain evidence of death following a DMF match, which also commenced the time for payment. Having reached that conclusion, the appellate court did not address the constitutional “impairment” issue. How Florida’s courts resolve these issues remains to be seen.


©2019 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.

Subscribe to Publications

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.