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

No Saving Grace for Policyholders
February 06, 2020
In McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance, the California Court of Appeal held that a statute requiring 60-day grace periods for term life insurance policies did not apply retroactively.

The beneficiaries of a term life insurance policy issued in 2005 challenged Protective Life’s termination of the insured’s policy. The policy was terminated following expiration of the policy’s 31-day grace period for nonpayment of premium. The insured died four months later. The beneficiaries filed suit asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing that the insurer failed to comply with a newly enacted statute requiring a 60-day grace period.

The California statute requires that “all life insurance policies issued or delivered in California on or after [January 1, 2013] … contain a grace period of at least 60 days” before the policy can be terminated for nonpayment of premium. Affirming the trial court’s judgment, the appellate court concluded that the statute applies prospectively only to term life policies issued after January 1, 2013.

A statute applies retroactively if (1) it contains express language of retroactivity; or (2) other sources provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the legislature intended the statute to be retroactive. The McHugh court found no express language of retroactivity in the statute and concluded that the legislative history reflected that the legislature’s intent was that the new law would apply only to those policies “issued or delivered” after January 1, 2013.

Because the term life insurance policy at issue in McHugh was issued and delivered to the insured in 2005 — eight years before the statute now in effect — the insured was not entitled to the extended, 60-day grace period.
Related Practices
Life, Annuity, and Retirement Litigation Financial Services Regulatory
Related Industries
Securities & Investment Companies
©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.