In U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, the Seventh Circuit, applying Wisconsin law, recently affirmed that an insurer may not void a life insurance policy solely on grounds that the policy’s original owner did not have an insurable interest in the life of the insured when the policy was issued. (In 2010, Wisconsin enacted a more comprehensive statute governing the life settlement industry and STOLI, but the parties agreed that it did not apply retroactively to the policy at issue.)
The case involved a $6 million life insurance policy issued to an 81-year-old man in 2007. U.S. Bank was substituted as the owner and beneficiary on the policy and continued to pay premiums until the insured’s death in 2014. After Sun Life refused to pay U.S. Bank the policy proceeds until it investigated the policy’s validity, U.S. Bank brought suit under section 631.07(4) of the insurance code, which provides that "no insurance policy is invalid merely because the policyholder lacks insurable interest" but authorizes the court to order the death benefit payable to another person "equitably entitled thereto." The district court ultimately awarded U.S. Bank the proceeds, along with 12 percent statutory interest, and bad faith damages.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It rejected the insurer’s argument that its refusal to pay the death benefits was permitted by another Wisconsin statute invalidating gambling contracts, pointing out that Wisconsin insurance code provisions trump other conflicting statutes. Similarly, the court found that Wisconsin’s constitution, which prohibits the legislature from authorizing gambling contracts, did not invalidate section 631.07(4) because that provision did not authorize the contracts but merely changed the remedy for the violation.
©2026 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.
