Menu

STOLI Policies Cancelled, Insurers Retain Premium

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

Two federal appellate courts have affirmed, on different grounds, the cancellation of large life insurance policies that were alleged to be stranger originated life insurance (STOLI), permitting the issuing insurers to retain the premium paid for the policies.

In Ohio National Life Assurance Corp. v. Davis, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling that a policy was STOLI, illegal, and void ab initio under Illinois law. The court found the policy, which was owned by a trust, was used “to hoodwink Ohio National.” The applicants never paid any amount and the policy was, from the beginning, controlled by third-parties that intended to sell it  to investors. The insureds were “the defendants’ puppets and the policies were bets by strangers on the insureds’ longevity,” the court said. Declining to order the return of premium paid, the court followed the general rule of leaving the parties where they placed themselves with respect to an illegal contract, but also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a civil conspiracy claim under which it recovered the commissions it paid and its costs and attorneys’ fees in obtaining a declaration that the policy was illegal.

In PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Sheldon Hathaway Family Ins. Trust, the court found a policy on an elderly insured with an initial premium of $200,000 fit the STOLI model. All premiums were financed, and the policy was pledged as collateral for the premium loan. However, the policy was cancelled on summary judgment, due to a material misrepresentation of the applicant’s net worth in the application, which was relied on by the insurer. Rejecting claims that the insurer had waived the right to rescind, the court affirmed the insurer’s retention of the premium paid to return the insurer to the position it was in prior to the policy’s issuance, since the commissions paid exceeded the premium paid.


©2022 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.