Structured settlements expert John Darer reviews the latest structured settlements news and information and provides expert opinion and commentary, including settlement planning issues/ ideas for settlement management, incisive Structured Settlement Watchdog® commentary that may be helpful to lawyers, plaintiffs, claims adjusters, judges, the news media, sellers and buyers of structured settlement receivables,and interested others. The style is spicy, informative, irreverent and effective. The most prolific structured settlements blog, Now in 19th Year! Check back daily for something new.
Plaintiffs Made a Failed Argument that Structured Settlement Broker Commission Paid by Annuity Issuer Shortchanged Plaintiffs
Efforts by a disgruntled former structured settlement broker Richard B Risk Jr., to get another big payday off the backs of an insurance company have ended in resounding failure.
Appeal of Ezell Lawsuit against AIG
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG PROPERTY CASUAL TY COMPANY; AIG SPECIAL TY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA.; AGC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL ANNUITY SERVICE CORPORATION; AIG CLAIMS, INC., f/k/a AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., Defendants, Appellees. The analysis and decision was written by Retired United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter appears below. Disgruntled Dick bringing in "The Big Stick, Steven Berman of Hagens Berman, who had a string of 9 figure recoveries didn't do the trick. The lawsuit was poorly pleaded from the outset, and the class representative cases were poorly chosen, in my opinion, for reasons I have explained in prior posts.
Souter wrote "Appellants conceded in their complaint that it is "[i]ndustrywide" practice for brokers to be paid "a standard sales commission of four percent (4%) of the annuity's cost," Amended Complaint ,Paragraph 31, and that the commission would be paid by the annuity issuer, id. , Paragraphs 35, 99(b), 100(b), 120(b), 121(b). Assuming that these allegations are true, as we must at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ,
The four percent commission payment would have been paid by the life insurance companies that sold the annuities, and would have been accounted for as a standard element of the cost of doing business by the life insurance companies and reflected in the market prices that Lexington paid.
The commission, in other words, was included in the price of a given annuity in the marketplace, and the appellants have provided no basis to infer that liability insurers in Lexington's position were under any obligation to inform a settlement party of the items of overhead that it was the annuity industry's continuing practice to account for in pricing their products, the annuity companies' payment of brokers' commissions from out of the money Lexington paid for the annuities does not belie the facts that Lexington paid the amounts it quoted and that appellants received exactly those specific annuity payments the agreements had promised, payments that the appellant.
Because the words "annuitized" and "total present value" simply committed Lexington to pay the amounts stated as necessary to produce the periodic payments specified in the agreementshave not alleged that they failed to receive".
"Because there is no dispute that appellants did receive the periodic payment amounts they were promised in agreements containing no uncorrected misrepresentations, there is no allegation in the pleadings that appellants suffered the kind of harm necessary to make out a case of the statutory or common-law violations claimed".
"The basic problem with appellants' complaint is not that they failed to state some facts "with particularity." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rather, it is that the facts they have pleaded "with particularity" on the matters discussed here demonstrate the absence of any "circumstances constituting fraud." !Q,_ Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's decision dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice."
Dick Risk's Resounding Failure to Bag the Big One Is Proof of Waning Relevance
Is an asset under management (AUM) fee structure for structured settlements better for plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits as some proponents advocate? Maybe, but maybe not, as a recently filed class acton lawsuit against Edward Jones indicates.
Edward Jones accused of breach of fiduciary duty for moving clients OUT OF commission accounts and into fee based advisory accounts
"Not for Nothing"
A group of investors, described as "unsophisticated investors" in a class action lawsuit against Edward D.Jones & Co. LP, two of its subsidiaries and several senior executives, has alleged that they were charged unnecessary fees that amounted to a violation of the firm's fiduciary duty.
Material to the discussion is that the Edward Jones case turns on allegations of a reverse churn revenue operation from March 2013 to March 2018, in which advisors moved largely dormant assets into the fee-based side of the practice, when the commission model would have better served the clients.
In a 2017 SEC filing Edward Jones explained the move away from commission based retirement investments following the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule.
It is interesting that In some of his unabashed advocacy for a fee based structured settlement compensation model, Sequence Media's Mark Wahlstrom makes a similar statement as Edward D.Jones under the section of the Edward Jones brochure entitled “Comparing Costs and Expenses,” namely:
"A financial advisor will typically earn more in upfront fees and commissions when you use brokerage services. In the alternative, a financial advisor will typically earn more over time if you invest in Advisory Solutions".
The class action lawsuit complaint against Edward Jones alleges, at 84,
"This statement misleadingly implied that a similar amount in fees would be charged whether utilizing commission-based brokerage services or fee-based Advisory Solutions, but that the fees will simply be paid over time in Advisory Solutions rather than immediately upfront in commission-based accounts. In truth, Plaintiffs and the other Class members paid substantially more in fees after Edward Jones moved their commission-based accounts into Advisory Solutions" (emphasis added)
See Anderson et al v Edward D. Jones & Co. LP et al. United States District Court Eastern District of California 2:18-cv-00714-JAM-AC
The question of whether insurance brokers are required to obtain the lowest cost insurance that meets the insured’s needs was recently addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court in the case of Emerson Electric Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 362 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. 2012).
Emerson alleged that
Marsh attempted to steer the business to a few insurers that agreed to pay Marsh extra volume based contingent commissions.
Marsh had breached its duty of loyalty to Emerson by not purchasing the lowest cost insurance that met Emerson’s needs because Marsh steered business to secure the alleged “contingent commissions” from the insurers involved with the ultimate placement
The Missouri Supreme Court found that:
while Marsh owed Emerson a duty of loyalty, the duty of loyalty DID NOT include a duty to obtain the lowest cost insurance that met the insured’s needs absent a specific agreement to do so.
the broker's duty of loyalty to the client does not require them to disclose contingent commissions to its insured.
the broker still has a fiduciary duty to use reasonable care, skill and diligence in procuring insurance. Failure of that fiduciary duty would be legally actionable, not because it represented a breach of the duty of loyalty but because it would constitute a failure to exercise the degree of care required in procuring a policy for the insured generally
How if anything does this decision impact the conduct of brokers of structured settlements in the primary and secondary structured settlement market?
Primary structured settlement market
Arguably the story of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York is a good example of where the "best price" [and lack of diversification] ultimately proved to not necessarily be the best thing for the insured (annuitant), regardless of whether the advocate for best price was the structured settlement broker, the plaintiff attorney, the plaintiff themselves, or the insurer.
Secondary structured settlement market
Do the same legal principles law even apply, even though some loosely use the term "annuity" "structured settlement" and "broker" when they are talking about structured settlement payment rights? A number of individuals or entities operating in the structured settlement factoring space claim to be able to get the best price. The question is the best price for sellers or best price for investors and what. if any duties are created. What is the consumer's or investor's expectation
Consider that New Leaf Structured Settlements, a factoring company that advertises 'Home Of the Best Price & Fast Funding Guarantees" but the fine print states the following:
*Customer must request Guarantees in writing from Company (New Leaf) prior to the execution of the contract to sell future structured settlement annuity payments and Company will provide both guarantees in writing as part of the transactional documents selling future structured settlement payments for a lump sum of cash. We make these offers as part of our unwavering commitment to be the best purchaser of structured settlement annuity payments. (emphasis ours)
This seems to acknowledge the issues raised in the Emerson case.
The structure broker negotiates a better split for himself by whining to a settlement planner representing the defense settlemnet planner that he's got to take care of the financial planner who brought him into the case to participate for the plaintff instead of the settlement planner already working on he case that was brought in by the plaintiff lawyer. Moreover it is represented that any split percentage would have to be agreeable to the financial planner. He represents to the defense settlement planner that a higher percentage would not be agreeable to the financial planner and that the whole structure might fall part. In good faith, the defense settlement planner relies on this and agrees to a lower split than usual. As an aside, the defense settlement planner also agrees to split his reduced share with a previous plaintiff broker out of his share.
It is then learned that the financial planner represents to the guardian ad litem that it is not being compensated from the structure.
When questioned by plaintiff lawyer in a courthouse hallway, in front of witnesses, plaintiff broker unconvincingly mumbles that there is no formal agreement with financial planner and would only pay it if licensed. During questioning by the defense settlement planner, in contradiction to the tactic used to negotiate his favorable split, plaintiff broker now claims that he hasn't discussed commissions with the financial planner since September 2010. The conversation also reveals that the plaintiff broker knows that the financial planner is licensed in the relevant states, a contradiction to what he said to the plaintiff's lawyer only minutes earlier in the hallway. Furthermore, in the same conversation,the payment of commissions to the financial planner is stated as possibly a conflict of interest by the same plaintiff broker. Talk about the Texas two-step!
Who is telling the truth? The financial planner; the structure broker brought in by the financial planner; or neither?
The young turk in question may feel smug for an illusory feeling that he has got over a more experienced broker and the guardian ad litem . But to do so through apparently deceptive means is shameful. The parties in question know who this individual is and the agency he's affiliated with. One can be sure some attorneys in the jurisdiction won't forget him either.
If you are going to negotiate, do so in good faith.
Note: Generally, you cannot split with or pay commissions to someone not properly licensed at the time the business is produced. On February 23, 2005 the Office of General Counsel of the New York State Insurance Department issued an opinion on point, in response to a question posed by the structured settlement watchdog, John Darer.
Post Script: In response to this story the structured settlement watchdog heard from the general agent of the broker in question. He verbally confirmed that the financial planner WAS being paid, or WILL be paid a share of the structure commission all along. With respect to the statement to the guardian ad litem, it was explained that the financial planner listed 4 entities in an email to the guardian ad litem that were not receiving compensation from the structure, none of which was his firm, and thus leaving wiggle room. The general agent threw it back on the shoulders of the guardian ad litem, who he alleged did not ask if the financial planner or his firm was being compensated. I'm not sure why there was lack of transparency, or the reason for the lack of transparency, and why the broker retained by the financial planner could not have been more forthright when questionned. There's a lesson learned in here somewhere.
Virtually every structured settlement broker or structured settlement planner boldly states that either:
They work for free
There is no charge for their services
There is no cost for retaining their structured settlement brokers
There is no cost for retaining their settlement planners
How can structured settlement brokers or settlement planners work for free and afford to make contributions to buy influence with trial lawyers?
It's common knowledge to lawyers (but perhaps not to injured persons) that many of these structured settlement brokers, settlement planners and/or their firms are contributing big money to state and national trial lawyer associations to buy influence or access, sponsoring RIMS or other legal or insurance conferences, taking out big expensive full page ads in Business Insurance, paying money to the campaign of your lawyer's favorite political candidate, taking your lawyers and colleagues to ball games in catered corporate suites, flying lawyers around in private aircraft, some boasting of virtually unlimited financial resources. It's their marketing prerogative of course.
But the truth is that structured settlement brokers or settlement planners DO NOT REALLY WORK FOR FREE. For appointed agents of an annuity issuer (a population that includes settlement planners), compensation is paid by commission (or share of commission where there is more than one agent/broker planner) from the placement of a structured settlement annuity as a "qualified funding asset". Some settlement planning/structured settlement firms disclose this upfront in their web advertising, others do not. This contingent compensation is not unlike the services of a real estate broker that you might engage, the lawyer that you retained to prosecute your lawsuit, or an agent that sells you a life insurance policy. A structured settlement annuity is an insurance product sold by licensed and appointed agents and/or brokers.
How Much Do Structured Settlement Brokers or Settlement Planners Get Paid?
Commissions Vary By the Type of Product Placed
A. Structured Settlement Annuity Funded StructuredSettlements
The pricing of a structured settlement annuity, including the indexed linked annuity payment adjustment rider offered by Pacific Life, includes a uniform commission structure, which is 4 percent of the premium placed with the annuity company. As I understand it the uniform commission was intended to eliminate selection bias that might exist if one company paid more compensation than another. The qualified assignment fee (ranging from $0 to $750) is commissionable with some companies. In other cases it is not. Insurance laws in effect in most states expressly prohibit reduction of commissions or rebating.
No Assignment Fee/Not applicable: American General Life Insurance Company (AIG), Berkshire Hathaway Life of Nebraska, First Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Company and National Indemnity Company (reinsurance structured settlement), United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (AIG), USAA Life Insurance Company
Commissionable Assignment fee: Pacific Life Insurance Company, Pacific Life and Annuity Company and United of Omaha (Mutual of Omaha). have commissionable assignment fees
Non-Commissionable Assignment Fees: New York Life, Independent Life, Prudential Insurance Company of America, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company
B. Market Based Structured Settlements
There are different market based structured settlement options for both plaintiffs and attorney. Depending on the solution there could be recurring fees of1%, 1.14%, 1.5%, 1.75% or more charged annually, or debited (proportionately if not annually) from account balances on a quarterly basis. So a $1,000,000 into a market based structured settlement could cost $10,000, $15,000, $17,500 annually. Using a simple example, a 1.5% fee on $1,000,000 could result in $150,000 in fees over 10 years, even without any growth (15,000 times 10). Some providers offer volume discounts. One attorney fee solution provider charges 1% annually and then has breakpoints to lower charges at $5M and other levels.
C. Duration Based Compensation Model (Indpendent Life Insurance Company)
In 2021, Independent Life Insurance Company, a Texas based life insurnace company that only issues structured settlement annuities, introduced a 2%-4%-6% duration based compensation model. The lower percentage is for duartions under 10 years, the second from 10-20 year durations and the 6% is for 20 year plus.
The Indpendent Life move to a Duration Based Structured Settlement Compensation Model was seen partly in reponse to low short term interest rates during and coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic to create business opportunities. The 6% was a risk reward carrot on a stick in an attempt to attract longer term money to the company. For more information, please visit Duration Based Structured Settlement Compensation Model (4structures.com)
D. Funding Agreement Structured Settlements
Introduced by American General and US LIfe as a way to do deferred start dates on non qualified assignments. Funding agreements are not annuities and thus not subject to IRC 72(u). Furthermore compensation can be variable provided the Defendant or insurer meets certain asset requriements and satisfactorily completes a due diligence questionnaire. For more information, please visit Funding Agreement Structured Settlement for Taxable Damages (4structures.com)
As if it wasn't enough to take on the responsibility of critiquing structured settlement websites for the improper use of the English language, for the first time I have an issue over the Settlement Channel's use of Yiddish.
In today's rant concerning one firm's commission sharing agreement Mark Wahlstrom uses the word "Huzpah". There is no such word in Yiddish. I believe the word Mark meant to use was "Chutzpah" (pronounced with the phlegmatic"ch" as in the Scottish, Loch Ness or "Achmed the Dead Terrorist".), or Hutzpah, not Huzpah (which is too close to the word for "the white canopy" under which the groom "steps on the glass"). Incidentally the modern use of the word "chutzpah" can be used to express strong disapproval as Mark has, or a grudging admiration, which he has not.
Further to the subject of Mark's rant. I believe I have seen the precise commission sharing agreement that Mark describes. It is being circulated by members of a large national agency and has been for some time. I disagree with Mark that the "kitchen sink agreement" is a sign of desperation. I see it is a sign of cheeky yet amusing opportunism. As opportunistic as it may seem, it's hardly worth anyone getting apoplectic over (and I'm not saying Mark is). I just can't imagine any settlement planner ever agreeing to the first offering and it isn't being pushed hard anyway.
It is worth noting that I learned today that the same national company (of whose representative I am assuming Mark refers) apparently sent guidelines (to its members) for splitting commissions , on a mutually favorable basis with brokers or settlement planners engaged by the plaintiff.
I continue to be troubled however (in view of Principle VI of the NSSTA Code of Ethics), that any member of any NSSTA member firm is soliciting business or participating in a transaction without being insurance licensed in the state, or seeking a share of commissions on variable or securities products without being appropriately licensed etc. I encourage Mark Wahlstrom to report such behavior in writing, along with the evidence to the NSSTA Board of Directors. It is not enough that NSSTA members (and non members) gripe to each other about ethics. Do something about it!
Without a direct carrier appointment the only way a person or entity can legally be paid for their role in placing life insurance or annuity business in New York is via a life broker's license.
Please review the following opinion of the New York State Insurance Department Office of General Counsel concerning Agent/Broker Licensing and Commission Sharing which this author obtained on February 23, 2005. The opinion is on point to the structured settlement profession.
Sally Roberts reported in the August 4, 2008 issue of Business Insurance on the recent producer compensation hearings that have been taking place in New York. According to Roberts, the New York State Insurance Law anti-rebating statute "had a supporting role in the discussions and could ultimately play a part in any future regulatory outcome.
Insurance anti rebating laws are based on the general premise that allowing inducements or rebating of commissions to insureds or prospective insureds can cause an unfair competition between agents and agencies of differing financial size resulting in a possible reduction in competition and opportunity for entry into a market even though the agents are marketing the same or similar products.The public is better served when competition is healthy and agents or agencies differentiate themselves based upon the quality and efficiency of service provided by the agent and a comparison of the benefits provided by the insurance policy rather than upon how much of the agent's commission will be returned to the purchaser.
One reason to take this seriously is that the first deputy superintendent of insurance in New York, Kermitt Brooks is quoted by Roberts as saying that he does not want the state's anti-rebate statute to be "used as a shield" by producers to preclude serious consideration about whether broker compensation should be disclosed to clients. More telling is the quote "If you ask yourself the question am I going to give the consumer information about broker compensation, the next logical question is what can she do with that information legally. And that gets you to the anti-rebate statute".
On the table in New York is whether or not the anti-rebating statute needs to be amended, changed or repealed in conjunction with the enforcement of new compensation disclosure regulations.
Structured settlement stakeholders need to watch these New York state developments very closely.
Dealing first with disclosure, the New York State General Obligations Law 5-1702 mandates a series requirements to be delivered by the defendant (or defendant's legal representative) concurrent with the creation of a structured settlement. In addition, there are certain courts, such as Bronx County, which have local rules of disclosure. Then there are a number of structured settlement consultant firms such as 4structures.com, LLC, Creative Capital, Inc. and EPS Settlements Group, which use a form of structured settlement affidavit or declaration to provide or supplement the state mandated disclosure.
I am fully in favor of full and complete disclosure of any compensation taken by a settlement consultant for counseling, advising or implementing a structured settlement factoring transaction or for receiving referral fees from a company or individual who performs such services.
Moving on to the rebating discussion, IF the rebating laws are repealed, who gets the rebate? Consider these points for discussion:
While the plaintiff or annuitant may be perceived to be a consumer, he or she is not providing, and CANNOT provide the funds to purchase the structured settlement annuity. If they did attempt to do so then actual receipt would have already occurred and therefore no structured settlement is possible.
If the plaintiff's financial adviser recommends a 468B qualified settlement fund as a work around, this does not solve the problem in the majority of cases which involve single claimants. This is because the QSF severely limits market choices, there has been no final ruling from Treasury, and/or where the small size of the case makes for an unpleasant cost/benefit ratio.
If the property and casualty company or defendant gets a generous rebate on what are already thin margins then it is likely that the there will be little financial incentive for plaintiff advisers to do their business and tort victims will suffer as a result. It is also unlikely that a repeal would mean that the current system of commission sharing between brokers and settlement planners for plaintiff and defense (like real estate model) would survive.
Casualty companies with structured settlement programs may not be able to achieve their goals. Many consultants on their panels,as well as those running them, will attest to the value of having a counterpart on the complex cases. Moreover, if as a result every significant case goes to a qualified settlement fund how is that helping your program?
Would there be litigation over the rebate? What are the costs? Who suffers the most? I think ALL stakeholders
If repealed, the New York State Trial Lawyer Association (NYSTLA) and The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers could lose significant donations. Large contributions from "plaintiff exclusive" settlement companies to the NYSTLA Partnership For Justice and the Academy equivalent would undoubtedly be affected by decreased profitability on New York State business.
If it happens in New York, does anyone believe it won't happen elsewhere?
There is no easy answer.
Members of The National Structured Settlement Trade Association, Society of Settlement Planners, New York State Trial Lawyer Association (NYSTLA) and The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers and advocacy groups for the disabled such as AAPD and the Brain Injury Association of New York State must sit up NOW and take notice of the issues and the potential consequences to their constituents.
Judging by today's output, Patrick Hindert apparently enjoys browsing dusty bookshelves and rifling through files seeking vintage 4 year old scholarly missives.
Hindert's last forage, only two years ago, brought us Adam Scales then 4 year old paper "Against Settlement Factoring? The Market in Tort Claims has Arrived , published in 2002. "One on topic hit wonder" Scales and his paper were "pimped" around by Hindert to various settlement industry and factoring industry trade associations in an apparent effort to mainstream the factoring industry. I think we all can see the effect of the energy that Hindert put into the factoring topic. Looking back readers, do you see that as an effort that brought a positive result or, was it the genus to certain "g-forces" holding the industry down?
New for 2008 it's Dick Risk's A Case for the Urgent Need to Clarify Tax Treatment for a Qualified Settlement Fund Created for a Single Claimant", published in 2004 in a Virginia law publication.
Hindert's post is pure propaganda with the mission being to position 468B Qualified Settlement Funds as the single most important strategic issue for the structured settlement and settlement planning industries.It isn't.
In this case Hindert is simply opportunistic to use a paper written by John J. Campbell, a Denver Colorado certified elder lawyer and Medicare Set Aside Consultant to build his case in the hopes of giving Treasury another nudge on the single claimant issue. Campbell recommends QSFs as "particularly useful" to allow planning for plaintiff's SSI or Medicaid eligibility. OK. John J. Campbell may be well respected in his area of expertise, and is certainly free to opine, but nothing on his firm's website suggests that he has ever held himself out as a tax lawyer. If one were to rely on such advice, do John J. Campbell and Dick Risk have enough Errors and Omissions between them to cover the tax liability if things turn out to be not as they opine?
Both Campbell's and Risk's articles rehash the arguments on the "economic benefit doctrine" sent by the Skadden Arps law firm to Treasury on behalf of the Society of Settlement Planners in 2003 in an effort to get clarification. That request was still pending some 5 years later before dropping off the Treasury's priority list.
Dress it up as they will, it remains that a number of settlement professionals enjoy using 468B QSFs on single claimant cases because they can keep all of the commissions. Some settlement professionals, who I have unaffectionately dubbed "QSF jockeys", may not have a clear cut reason, or offer specious arguments for doing a single claimant 468B QSF. Laundry lists of alleged defendant misdeeds of long ago are thrust forward in an attempt to whip attorneys into a frenzy so that the settlement professional's income can be doubled**
Some alert plaintiff attorneys are now asking questions of these "QSF jockeys" to help their clients avoid potentially significant additional costs and limitations associated with them
While this author believes there are circumstances where a 468B qualified settlement fund may be appropriate in such cases, In determining whether the 468B QSF is the correct settlement tool for one's own client, one has to take into account these costs and the fact that the number of annuity issuers who will write a structured settlement emanating from a single claimant QSF is very small. The latter could change however, if there is a positive Treasury guidance.
When pressed for an answer any qualified adviser will tell you that while a 468B qualified settlement fund is a useful settlement tool, it is neither appropriate nor practical to use an IRC 468B Qualified Settlement Fund for every case of every size, single claimant or otherwise.
Hindert's article fizzles off point with a discussion of the procedural issues concerning Medicaid special needs trusts. Perhaps he'll stay on point in part 3.
**This author has in his possession a document authored by Patrick Hindert in which "show me the money" was listed at the top of the "unstated mission" of the particular organization.
Judicial procedure for Infant's Compromise in one part of Bronx County New York City, includes the requirement that plaintiff lawyers submitting a petition for Court approval of infants' settlements must obtain least 3 structured settlement quotes from 3 separate structured settlement brokers. With all due respect to the judiciary and its wish of the judiciary to streamline procedure, the current set up is fraught, in my opinion, with inefficiency, potential deficiencies and a sense of unfairness that could seriously undermine the people that the judges are duty bound to protect.
The purpose of this post is to apply my 24 years of knowledge and experience to examine what flaws exist in the current approach and to assist the judiciary in the New York City counties [Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, New York/Manhattan and Staten Island], in addition to other areas of the country where similar procedures exist.
New York General Obligations Law on Structured Settlements
The New York State General Obligations Law at Section 5-1702(e) requires the defendant and/or defense lawyer negotiating a structured settlement to issue a statement that the claimant is advised to obtain independent professional advice relating to the legal, tax and financial implications of the settlement, including any adverse consequences and that the defendant or defendant`s legal representative may not refer any advisor, attorney or firm for such purpose. According to the statute "independent professional advice" means advice of an attorney, certified public accountant, actuary or other licensed professional adviser.
What Must Happen Before a Petition for Infant Compromise Gets to a New York Supreme Court Judge?
From a practical standpoint we should take a step back and examine what it takes to get to the point where the judge is reviewing the case. Following are abbreviated steps:
Step 1 Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff Attorney seeks independent financial advice through structured settlement broker, settlement planner. The advisor retained may have been selected based on prior experience, special qualifications, or a formal vetting process.
Step 2 Structured settlement broker or settlement planner gathers all relevant facts from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff attorney, including, if applicable, life care plans and cost of care analyses, digests them, performs research, if applicable, and then comes back with recommendations. In some cases there is a need to coordinate one or more additional advisors or entities (e.g. the CFP, the CPA, tax attorney, trust attorney, trust company). There may also be suggestions for vertical and/or horizontal diversification of periodic payments across several annuity issuers. Furthermore, the Defendant or Insurers may have staggered funding dates. Consider that the New York Liquidation Bureau takes up to 9 months to disburse funds after receipt of papers. Other cases involve insurers who will not pre-fund structured settlements. Try planning around that during periods when interest rates are in flux!
Step 3 The structured settlement broker or settlement planner's recommendations are either accepted or rejected or tweaked by the plaintiff and/or his/her attorney. If there is any rejection or tweaking the plan is revised and then Step 3 is repeated
Step 4 The structured settlement broker or settlement planner's works with the plaintiff attorney to accurately memorialize the accepted recommendations (subject to Court approval) into the attorney's affirmation and the plaintiff's petition and proposed order. This may involve multiple drafts and rewrites and or separate reports to the Guardian Ad Litem if applicable.
Step 5 The attorney submits the Petition to the Court and waits for the hearing date. The settlement planner may be asked to appear in Court to help explain the plan to the judge.
Step 6 The court may approve, reject or modify the proposed distribution plan.
Step 7 Upon Court approval the structured settlement broker or settlement planner implements the plan in conjunction with other applicable advisors or entities. Ongoing monitoring may be required depending on the characteristics of the different elements in the settlement plan.
There could be hours of work involved in any of these steps which could vary based on the peculiarities of the particular attorney or plaintiff. The structured settlement broker or settlement planner may also have to operate in a world of unknowns such as when final numbers or not fully known due to outstanding liens or whether there is Medicare involvement. My work and that of others like me helps injured parties make critical life impacting financial decisions in a dignified way when they may not be fully through a grieving or anger process or other form of transitions stress.
On the larger brain damaged infant cases and others involving minors and incompetents it'snot always about the annuity. In fact the placement of a structured settlement annuity may represent a small part of the overall plan. It takes the skills and intellectual capital of the settlement planner that the plaintiff or his/her lawyer has engaged to help weave together all the "moving parts" of the settlement plan.
The current system in the one county could serve to reduce the end product to a beauty contest with all of us wearing the same 10 colors of "bathing suit"(annuity issuer)?Please pardon the sub reference but, its what's behind the suit (the intellectual capital) that's important!
Most structured settlement brokers or settlement planners are compensated via commissions. A firm such as mine discloses this up-front and its structured settlement affidavit which is submitted with the Petition to the Court. This method of compensation is what allows those who don't normally have access to such advice to get it without having to pay a substantial hourly fee. For an advisor to lose standing after one advisor has met with the lawyer, interviewed the plaintiff, explored the issues, presented the issues and hours of time is patently unfair. A comprehensive settlement planning process which the plaintiff understands when the structured settlement is created AND the ongoing relationship with that settlement professional is what is likely to buffer the susceptibility to irresponsible factoring of those payments which you judges (and I) love to hate.
The one dimensional "3 separate quote/ 3 broker " requirement is possibly borne of the fact that certain property and casualty companies have approved lists of both acceptable annuity issuers to fund structured settlements and brokers to place them. In the old days and even today some of those lists are limited in number. It is important to note that the limitation in number does not mean a limitation in quality. One P&C company has 5 companies on its New York list, of which 3 have AM Best's highest rating of A++(Superior). A highly publicized argument put forth by certain plaintiff advisors is that the plaintiff is not receiving "full market access" and therefore the plaintiff might be getting short changed. There are a number of ways to handle that, but apparently the 3 quotes/3 brokers approach was selected by the judiciary in the New York county in question.
Some have attempted to use a qualified settlement fund as a way to get around these lists. But then the dilemma continues as the use of qualified settlement funds on single claimant cases may in fact give the plaintiff and even more restrictive selection.
A skilled structured settlement broker or settlement planner should be able to run a "full market survey" and invariably get one of the companies on the property and casualty company approved list to match one of the companies not on its list.
Other practical considerations which highlight the flaws in the current "3 bid/3 broker" judicial approach:
Settlement documents , including Court approval MUST set forth specific periodic payments as partial consideration when a structured settlement is to be part of the settlement. The back log of cases in the New York City counties often means a considerable delay in obtaining a hearing date. If a judge is reviewing a petition in which 3 non-locked in quotes are submitted with the petition they are absolutely useless. If rates have fallen during the delay period (again often caused by the Court's schedule) the periodic payments will NOT be able to be maintained for the same price. This requires more quotes and less efficiency. More of the Court's and the taxpayers' time is needlessly eaten up. On the other hand if they want to keep their appointments with the 10 New York structured settlement annuity issuers, the brokers should not lock annuity quotes in UNLESS they are sure to be brokering or co-brokering the case. A lock in with an anticipated funding date permits the Petition, Affirmation and the Court Order to comply with the appropriate tax principles and protects the injured party against adverse interest rate fluctuation. Then additional language can be inserted into submitted documents to account for Court delays which also makes things move more smoothly with the annuity issuer when Court approval is eventually obtained.
In my opinion the Bronx judiciary should consider the following approach:
A structured settlement affidavit executed by ALL structured settlement brokers participating in the case.
The plaintiff's settlement planner should be required to prepare and submit a settlement plan that sets forth the rationale for the recommendations (which include the structured settlement being considered) to show that the plaintiff has obtained advice in response to New York State General Obligations Law 5-1702(e). Part of such report should include the market survey of the specific structured settlement cash flow proposed. This report can be appended to the Attorney Affirmation and Plaintiff's Petition. It can also be helpful to the guardian ad litem, if applicable. I recently prepared one such report that included 6 pages of detailed explanation and 12 exhibits. The level of detail of the overall plan and how the structure fits into it makes the guardian ad litem's and the judge's job that much easier and is often appreciated.
SUMMARY
The judiciary is to be commended for trying to facilitate its work flow. But the current system places too much emphasis in the wrong area because any large structured settlement broker or settlement planner has access to all 10 of the annuity issuers admitted in New York State. With respect to larger cases more emphasis should be placed on the quality of the plan presented along with the petition. The current concerns of the judiciary on the structure pricing can be addressed by having one broker show that the market was shopped.
What is a Structured Settlement? What You Need to Know Structured settlements and what you need to know about them including a helpful introductory video featuring A.M. Best Client Recommended Structured Settlement Expert and Registered Settlement Planner John Darer of 4structures.com LLC
How Do Structured Settlements Work? How Structured Settlements Work How structured settlements work, including 4structures.com LLC's super helpful structured settlement flow chart/diagram showing how structured settlements fit in on the spectrum of settlement planning solutions.
Rated Ages and Structured Settlement Cost Rated Ages for Structured Settlement Annuities present advantages to all parties. Shift the mortality risk to a life insurance company whose business it it is to assess mortality risk to price its life insurance and annuities. Rated ages boost your structured settlement annuity benefit per premium dollar, or your yield on lifetime payments. Rated ages help to reduce the cost of funding a Medicare Set Aside arrangement where a Structured MSA, is being used { WCMSA LMSA or NFMSA].
Top Structured Settlement Annuity Companies 2024 Which life insurance companies issue structured settlement annuities in 2024? A list of current structured annuity issuers, the location of their home offices and their financial ratings from A.M. Best, Moodys, Fitch, Standard & Poors and/or other Tier1 NAIC ratings, with links to their websites and other useful information. Last updated June 14, 2024
Treasury Funded Structured Settlements Treasury Funded Structured Settlements are a settlement option for the most conservative using the OTHER permissible qualified funding asset under IRC 130(d), United States Treasury Bonds in addition to, or instead of, structured settlement annuities. Treasury Funded Structured Settlements can also be used to fund installment sales, also known as structured sales and other non qualified structured settlements.
Compare Structured Settlement IRR to Other Settlement Alternatives Use the Taxable Equivalent Yield chart to help compare the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of a structured settlement to other alternative or complementary investments. Need help with the chart? Call 4structures.com® LLC at 888-325-8640
Structured Settlement Payments | Types of Structured Settlements 2024 Ways You Can Structure Your Settlement Payments in 2024. With a structured settlement you can have more than one type of payment in a single contract. Different types of structured settlement payments can be customized and combined to meet your needs on a stand-alone basis, or in conjunction with other financial products. Diversify your structured settlement, if you wish, by funding with more than one annuity issuer, with treasury funded structured settlements, index linked structured settlement payments and market based structured .
Structured Attorney Fees for Tax Deferral for Attorney Contingency Fees Structured attorney fees is a financial strategy that offers a unique way to defer taxes for lawyers and law firms. Lawyers CAN structure their legal fees even if the plaintiff doesn't structure their settlement. There are multiple ways to structure your attorney fees, such as capped or uncapped index linked structured settlement annuities where payments are adjusted based on upside changes in the S&P 500 or another index, Trial Lawyers may also use a special deferred pay/deferred compensation arrangement, if market based returns returns are desired with no cap. Plan NOW for year end! Put structured attorney fee expert John Darer® on your settlement planning team in 2024.
Structured Settlement Annuity Company Customer Service Phone Numbers Receiving structured settlement payments from your own structured settlement or inherited structured settlement? You'll like this huge time saver. Click the title for a link to a comprehensive list of customer service telephone numbers that includes both current AND former structured settlement annuity issuers and reinsurers. If you have simple bank or beneficiary changes, or if the insurance company that issued the structured annuity has merged, sold or spun off its block of structured annuity business (e.g. Aviva, Allstate, Transamerica, AEGON, GE Capital, Liberty, CNA, Confederation Life), oran annuity issuer has changed its name and you're trying to track them down. Here you go! The list is regularly updated. Last updated May 20, 2024.
Structured Settlement Quote Lock-Ins | What You Need To Know What does a Structured Settlement Lock-In Mean? How do plaintiffs, defendants and insurers benefit from a structured settlement quote lock in when finalizing a settlement? How does the defendant/insurer/court benefit from using a structured settlement lock-in? Where to be careful when using structured settlement lock ins.
What Are Structured Settlement Annuities? Structured settlement annuities are annuities that can provide one or more customized annuity payment streams in a single contract. Read about structured settlement annuities here.
History of Structured Settlements Tracing the roots of structured settlements history from 1918, when Congress exempted damages for personal injury or sickness from income tax, to the establishment of structured settlements as a core personal injury settlement planning tool to the present day.
What Are Market Based Structured Settlements? Market based structured settlements are an alternative or supplementary structured settlement solution for the plaintiff, attorney or law firm that:
1. Can afford to take some market risk
2. Have discretionary settlement dollars.
Claimants and attorneys alike may find that market-based structured settlements provide the opportunity to receive tax-free income, or tax-deferred income, while enjoying growth potential.
Structured Settlements and Longevity Risk| What Are the Odds? Do your financial resources give you enough road, or will the road run out before you do? A structured settlement annuity helps mitigate the risk of outliving your savings, no matter how long you live. A structured settlement can include one or more customized payment streams and types.
Firmwide Qualified Settlement Funds Debunked Firmwide qualified settlement funds have been heavily promoted to trial lawyers, but have been debunked in a detailed analysis in a July 2022 legal opinion a tax partner at the law firm of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP. Trial lawyers and firms who have established Firmwide QSFs or coinsidering establishing a Firmwide QSF should read the analysis as part of their evaluation.
Simply Click the Subscribe Button at the top left of the page above the blog title which will take you to the blog subscribe page or follow this link https://feeds.feedblitz.com/structuredsettlements
STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS 4REAL® Blog Is a Popular Source of Structured Settlement News, Information and Commentary, John Darer Reviews, Settlement Planning News and Financial Solutions for over 18 years,
with a stable readership that seeks credible structured settlement information, John Darer Reviews, commentary and/or opinion about topical issues related to settlement planning, targeted to lawyers, injured persons and their family members, guardians, survivors, judges, magistrates, special masters, mediators, administrators, trust companies, insurance company executives and adjusters, financial advisers, settlement professionals, financial professionals, insurance regulators, government leaders, federal and state law enforcement, buyers and sellers of structured settlement payment rights, the news media and other interested parties.
4structures.com LLC established this structured settlement blog in 2005. John Darer ®, CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT® RSP CLTC, President of 4structures.com, located in Stamford, CT 06902. John Darer is an experienced New York City area structured settlement expert, structured settlement broker, Certified Financial Transitionist, and Registered Settlement Planner. He holds insurance licenses in 45 states, has 41 years financial services experience and 31 years in the structured settlements and settlement planning space.
In his capacity as a investigative journalist and commentator, and professionally, John Darer passionately believes that shining the light on a business practice is both healthy and newsworthy. It is in the best interest of injury victims, their families and their legal advisers, that the settlement planning discussion involve those that are properly trained in the topic, properly informed on the topic and, with respect to structured settlements, properly licensed and/or appointed. It has significant instructional and deterrent value to other practitioners and firms as well as those who may be caught in the cross hairs.
WHAT YOU GET here is the straight stuff with a touch of irreverence and humor. We hope you enjoy and find the content to be helpful.
Subscribe to the structured settlement blog feed, or a specific category feed through your blog reader, or through the Subscribe button at the top left of this page. Followers of JDDarer™ on Twitter may also receive select content.
If you would like to speak with John he can be reached at (888)325-8640
Thank you for reading!
Last updated July 10, 2024
New York City Structured Settlement Experts Bridge building settlement consultants who collaborate with clients using a humanistic process, providing creative and reliable advice and support for litigating parties and their lawyers with matters in Courts throughout the New York City metropolitan area
New York Structured Settlement Expert Whether you're at the crossroads of the world or the crossroads of your life, structured settlements provide stability for when life is at a crossroad. Call 888-325-8640
New York Settlement Planning Expert for NY Attorneys and Residents - YouTube New York settlement expert John Darer's comprehensive approach to Settlement Planning helps New York personal injury lawyers and their clients move through the financial transition resulting from a major life event. CPLR Articles 50A and 50B expertise for New York lawyers
New York Structured Settlement Expert Useful information and ideas about structured settlements, settlement planning and litigation recovery managements for New York residents, New York Lawyers and New York judges
New York General Obligations Law §5-1702 The New York Structured Settlement Protection Act imposes mandatory requirements on the defendant or the defendant's legal representative when a structured settlement is created (as part of the resolution of a case)
Structured Settlements v Structured Judgments Often confused by writers on the Internet, but there IS a difference between structured settlements and structured judgments under CPLR Articles 50A or 50B. Find out more...
Connecticut Structured Settlement Experts 4structures.com LLC is based in Stamford CT and Connectict works with clients all over CT, Greenwich, Stamford, Darien, New Canaan, New Haven, Hartford, West Hartford, West Haven, Torrington, Danbury, Wilton, Ridgefield, Norwalk, Midletown, New London, Westport, Oxford, Stratford, Old Greenwich, Stafford, Storrs, Groton
"I'm with ***** Settlement Funding and appreciate your TRUTHFUL information"
Structured Settlement Factoring Company representative on LinkedIn, January 26, 2024
"You have a wonderful blog"
Partner in Philadelphia law firm August 30, 2020
"Impressive Blog" -Counsel to Am Law 200 ranked International Law Firm July 22, 2020
"Thank you so much for giving us your time and leading us in the right path , Thank you, you are a God send , God bless you in all your works" -K April 11, 2017
"Once again, I can't tell you how appreciative I am for your help. In today's day and age, it is rare that you actually find people who are willing to go the extra mile..." -TC May 5, 2015
"I wanted to send you this email to say Happy New Year to you and your family. May God continue to bless you. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to meet you on the phone. I truly thank you for introducing me and my son, (redacted) to (lawyer). It is people like you that God put in the path of my son situation. Thanks a million times! {original on file] 1-2-2015
"John Darer has been nothing but honest,helpful,informative with options, & his
"time" was NEVER an issue!"-Andrew S 8/18/2012
" I wish there were more like you" JG 9-15-2014
In my opinion, John Darer is an excellent consumer advocate in the insurance industry. When I had no one else to turn to after running up against the stone walls of these giant insurance company, John Darer used hours of his own time to investigate my situation. Not only is this an invaluable service to me the consumer but it is also of great value to the insurance industry by providing them consumer feed-back. This allows the insurance companies to correct their faults and move toward greater transparency which improves the overall public image of the insurance industry as a whole" JW 9/4/2014
John, Keep fighting the fight. -NASP member 12-4-2013
John...Thank you for your professional advice-Brandon 11-13-2013
"...Thanks to Mr. Darer's blog and personal pointers I was able to obtain a fair price for the sale of client structured settlement. Therefore, if one has no choice, but to sell their settlement educate yourself first before selling start by reading John's blog" Mr P. 11/17/2012
"I always appreciate when he (John Darer) keeps us informed on regs and rules. No one does it better"- structured settlement industry colleague and reader RY 7/26/2012
"Amen - and continued thanks for your vigilance, John"- RL 8/18/2011
"Thanks for writing these great blogs on your site John! As an individual investor I have learned so much about the secondary market (for annuities, structured settlements, lottery payments, etc.) from your blogs and video series!!!" (6/5/2011)
I have found the intelligent and forthright information on your site a godsend. So much so I have tried in a small way to pass on my findings to others. Please keep up the good work and enhance your well deserved reputation as the authority on this subject- Mike 4/29/2011
John -
I can't thank you enough for bringing this to my attention. In my wildest dreams... PJ-May 12, 2011
John, I love reading your blog! Not only have I found very useful information there, but the comedy is much appreciated! Thanks for talking about "the big pink elephant in the living room" that everyone else ignores!
Thank you again for your help via phone and blog! I really needed to hear what you had to say today! BM 11/23/2010
John—this (video published 11/2010) is a well done piece. I like the way you always stick to the facts-AM
What a wonderful blog you have! I have completely enjoyed reading some of your posts (4/16/2010)
Thank you so very much for discussing my concerns about Symetra, my annuity company. I am amazed that PI attorneys as well as a settlement broker in San Diego, could not answer the simplest questions I had regarding the Safeco/Symetra issue. Your blog/web site is most interesting and informative, and I am grateful you have take on the "watchdog" role!
Thank you so much again (3/25/10)
"Keep up the good work exposing abuses in our industry - our future depends on clients being properly advised."-CD
Just checked out your blog and loved it. Keep up the good and balanced work-DL
"...we have never met but I thoroughly enjoy your web site and blog - excellent material…-PB
"I enjoy your website and its content. Informative and well written"-JC
I heard a radio ad for the Peachtree Settlement Fund as I was driving into work this morning. (San Francisco Bay area.) I decided to check it out on the Internet and came upon your blog. Thank you very much. I do not have a “structured” settlement,
"All the others that I had emailed & have seen on the net were "cash now types" & have no concern of me & just are looking for my $$$. When I came across your site & blog I realized that u are an upstanding guy & are not like others. That's why I emailed"
This was Great. Right On Point-TS
"Other Than John Darer No One Seems To Be Doing Anything"-J
Thanks for your help and also for the good work you do on behalf of our industry-L
"Thank you for being the inspiration that you are and for being a strong advocate for integrity in our business"-KL
"I Commend You On Your Effort To Make a Difference!" -R
"He is a fabulous writer who has a great passion for the structured settlement industry. I commend him on the passion he invokes when he writes on his blog listed above. That type of commitment and passion is hard to find and is rare in this world" -AC
Structured Settlement Best Practices Corner
New York Insurance Advertising law requires the full name of the Insurer to be listed along with the city and state of the principal office. Stating that you represent these fine companies using Insurance company logos without the preceding information are also illegal
When it comes to settlement documents it is the ultimate responsibility of the lawyers or claims adjusters who receive input concerning the structured settlement aspects of the documents to actually read the entire document, exercise independent thought and advise their clients properly
Be aware that financial advisors use of testimonials is prohibited or restricted
Most states require that Testimonials represent the CURRENT opinion of the person who made the testimonial. Be prepared to back it up.
Number of States That Prohibit Payment of QSF expenses by licensed agents and brokers
All posts, including memes created by John Darer, Copyright 4structures.com, LLC 2024. All rights reserved. Ongoing filings have been made with the United States Copyright Office. Except for those videos in which John Darer appears, or any video advertisements or public service videos appearing on, this blog, no claim is made to videos, music or images in any mashup which are the property of their respective owners. Disclaimer: The use of any marks herein does not suggest any sponsorship, affiliation or relationship with owners of such marks. Any marks used in commentary herein are in the context of fair use to discuss the newsworthy topics presented herein.This web site is not endorsed by, directly affiliated with, maintained, authorized, or sponsored by any insurance or other company referenced herein. All products, services and company names are the registered trademarks of their original owners. The use of any trade name or trademark is for identification and reference purposes only and does not imply any association, sponsorship or endorsement between the trademark holder and the operators of this web site.
Structured Settlement Watchdog® is a registered trademark of 4structures.com LLC. USPTO Reg. 4711312 All rights reserved.
John Darer® is a Registered Trademark of John Darer, Stamford CT. USPTO Reg. 4674907 All rights reserved
4structures® Reg. 4640532 and 4structures.com® Reg. 4640531 are Registered Trademarks of 4structures.com LLC. All rights reserved
Structured Settlements 4Real® is a Registered trademark of 4structures.com LLC Reg.4345946 All rights reserved.
Comments and Trackback Policy
Comments and Trackback Policy
Comments to this blog are encouraged, welcome and add spice to the interactive nature of blogs. However, the unscrupulous practice by some to deliver comment spam, to connect all manner of unrelated products to structured settlements, detracts from user experience, is NOT tolerated by this author and thus necessitates the practice of comment screening.
Jay J. Sangerman, PLLC A New York and Florida based AV rated estate planning law practice with an emphasis in Supplemental Needs Trusts, which assists attorneys in efficient case settlement though the use of Supplemental Needs Trusts and Special Needs Trusts; and Elder Law
Day Pitney LLP - People - Keith Bradoc Gallant Brad's practice includes traditional trust and estate planning and administration, special needs and disabilities planning, planning for same-sex couples and their families, planning for incapacity, and all types of probate litigation.
Helpful Structured Settlement Information is Here!
Learn more about structured settlements by reading structured settlement expert John Darer's blog
Researching Structured Settlements? It may be helpful to check (1) in Archived Blog Posts (above left); (2) use the Google search box (below); (1) visit the 4structures® website at https://www.4structures.com, (4) visit 4structures® Structured Settlement Experts YouTube Channel by clicking https://www.youtube.com/user/4structures1, or (5) call settlement expert John Darer® at 888-325-8640, toll-free in the USA, 646-849-1588 in New York City, or 203-325-8640 in CT, or from outside the USA.
Subscribe to this Blog
Simply click on the " Subscribe" link at the top left of this blog page and follow the simple instructions.
The John Darer® authored Structured Settlements 4Real® blog is the most prolific structured settlement blog, providing information, commentary and opinion since 2005 with over 5,420 blog posts, and counting!
Why Take a Structured Settlement?
A structured settlement offers guaranteed financial security to personal injury victims, wrongful death survivors and their families. A structured settlement involves a customized stream of payments, provides long-term stable tax-free income, for a period of years or a lifetime. Unlike other income annuities. a structured settlement annuity can have multiple payment streams to address multiple needs in a single contract.
London Market Structured Settlements Experts Bridge building settlement consulting using a humanistic process, providing creative and reliable support for London Market Insurers, Lloyds Syndicates, Claims Professionals and Lawyers
New York Structured Settlement Experts Bridge building settlement consultants who collaborate with clients using a humanistic process, providing creative and reliable advice and support for litigating parties and their lawyers.
FactCheck.org nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that Aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.
NYC 9-11 Health The World Trade Center Health Registry is now the largest registry in U.S. history to track the health effects of a disaster. The federally funded program is information central for first responders and others with health issues from 9-11
Comments and Trackback Policy