Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog: Structured Settlements | Settlement Planning News and John Darer Reviews

Structured Settlement 4Real Blog Reaches 1 Million Page Views

Thank You Readers!

Privacy Policy Clash With Old School Structured Settlement Customer Service

by John Darer® CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Futurist John Naisbitt first developed the concept of high tech, high touch in his 1982 bestseller Megatrends, which sold 14 million copies in 57 countries. He theorized that in a world of technology, people long for personal, human contact.

How can structured settlement insurance company privacy policies be more compatible with the ability to provide old fashioned customer service where agents and customers need it and want it?

You know the kind of customer service where your insurance agent has the information at their finger tips, or can easily obtain it, instead of handing you off to a customer service telephone number, following which you are subjected to a long on-hold time, a retina scan, providing a urine sample, waiting for that to come back. surrendering your first born, and then two or three "brief holds",  before you get to "the last 4 digits of your social security number".

This afternoon after wasting 25 minutes on the phone with one company's customer service department simply to verify if a check went out, I was told, after 3 "brief holds" to have the annuitant contact them and/or, get this, write a letter and mail it to them.  You've got to be "kidding me!

So this afternoon I conducted a survey of currently writing structured settlement annuity issuers to see how they handle requests.  All but two of the companies would provide the information requested to an agent that they knew was involved in the case, via the commission split agreement.  One company would also require the agent to provide the last 4 digits of the annuitant's social security number.

It's very easy to simply refer people to a customer service phone number, but as Naisbitt surmised 33 years ago, people want to talk to a human, not navigate a maze of numbers. The other day I had to contact a major bank's estate division and its poorly designed customer service phone that had me going 9 buttons deep, until I got where I needed to go. 

 I still get plenty of calls from human beings who need to speak to someone knowledgeable, despite our posting a convenient list of customer service phone numbers to current and formerly writing structured settlement annuity issuers on our website at 4structures.com.   Our customers, and those of others, have already tried to call the toll-free number at the insurer. They want to speak to someone who knows their history,  or at least the history. not someone right out of training.

And if I'm the licensed agent who wrote the structured settlement in the first place, perhaps I want to be there for the person. For example, a young adult may benefit from speaking to me as a form of wealth orientation. I met with his or her parents. I can give that person a valuable window into the past, to give them context,  as they think about the future. It's possible that their attorney or one or more of their parents have retired or died.  When a customer calls who I haven't heard in a  while and wonders if I remember them, I can hear their feeling of comfort when I remember something about them and share that with them.

So I open this up for industry thought and meaningful discussion about how companies can live within their privacy obligations while assisting the people that bring them business to do their jobs in a time efficient manner.  We need solutions that can be communicated to agents at the outset, bearing in mind the way our industry is uniquely designed.

 

 

Structured Settlement Pulp From Disgruntled Richard B. Risk Esq. in LifeHealthPro

 by Structured Settlement Watchdog®

In the context of his March 12, 2015 article "In wake of lawsuits, storm clouds over structured settlements", dredging up Sylvester Stallone's epic portrayal of Rocky, or  the structured settlement industry as Rocky "getting pummeled", in his opening paragraph,  to conjure up the image that Richard B. Risk Jr. wants to convey, merely demonstrates that Dick Risk may have been hoisted on his own petard, bobbed and weaved by a "rope a dope" of his own creation. Richard B. Risk, Jr. prefers to be addressed as Dick.

Cantaloupe "Flip Fantasia"

Disgruntled Dick's Misplaced Metaphor

If indeed Dick Risk believes his own press clipping, Rocky was supposed to be a patsy for Apollo Creed. Instead the underdog took Apollo Creed all the way and Creed was surprised by the tenacity of the southpaw. Then of course there were multiple sequels, Rocky II where he defeated Apollo Creed, Rocky III where he defeated Clubber Lang and Rocky IV where he beat Drago, in revenge for the "ultimate knockout" of his then buddy, Apollo Creed. Risk looks foolish for his hemispheric portrayal of  the structured settlement industry as Rocky "getting pummeled", It merely demonstrates that Dick Risk may have been boomeranged in a "rope a dope" of his own creation. As a fighter,Rocky kept getting up after gettng down. In real life Sly Stallone wedded and divorced glamazon Brigitte Nielsen, who played Drago's wife in Rocky IV.  If the structured settlement industry can get up after getting knocked down as much as Rocky they will have succeeded.  Thanks Dick!

Dick Risk's Questionable Math

In"barely" the same breath as Risk's "Rocky raccoon" , Dick Risk refers to structured settlement industry production in stating that the industry’s production last year was "barely two-thirds what it was ten years ago", in real terms. The link is to an excerpt of a report compiled by Melissa Evola Price of SFA Inc. and is used completely without attribution by Richard Risk or LifeHealthPro to Ms. Evola. I confirmed with Ms. Evola that Risk is not on her distribution list. So someone on her distribution list supplied the Evola work product to Risk and Risk and/or LifeHealthPro used it without attribution.   This is where Dick Rick comes up short.  Most people in the structured settlement industry know that the spreadsheet is produced by Evola (and therefore would likely attest to the plagiarism) because she has diligently done so for many years (until Matt Ross assumed the reins),  but the wider readership of LifeHealthPro does not.

Setting that aside the questionable ethics of Risk using someone else's work without attribution, Dick Risk's math is way off.

Evola's most recent numbers 2014  are         $5,250,262.691.00            

One decade ago would be 2004, right?          $6,135,000,000.00  

A simple calculation  $5,250,262,691 divided by $6,135,000,000.00 equals 0.8558 or 86% (rounded)

Two thirds =0.6666

What was the Point of Dick Risk's article?

So if we eliminate the first paragraph of Dick Risk's article for the miserable subterfuge that it is and discount the plagiarism of Evola's work product at the time of publication,  what is Risk really trying to say?

" As a longtime believer in structures’ value", he nevertheless thinks  the issues raised in two lawsuit filings show that the industry desperately needs to improve controls on the $5-plus billion in settlements it handles each year.

Risk reports month old news about a class action lawsuit against Ringler Associates in Oregon where the judge denied Ringler and Paul Hoffman's motion to dismiss. [ See Ringler Associates et al. Motion to Dismiss ELNY class Action Denied February 14, 2015]

Risk feels that "this is where things could get problematic for Ringler and, importantly, risky for claims insurers* that  Ringler worked with on the settlements in question.  A key issue: Did
the claims professionals or Ringler’s consultants know prior to securing  ELNY annuities that ELNY was unlikely to be able to meet its future obligations?

__________________________________________________________________

*Claims Insurer is a non-sequitur which appears to be made up by Risk.

There is neither such term in a Google search today, nor does it make sense. An insurer provides cover for its insured against the risks of perils. Generally an insurance contract will  provide for the defense and indemnification of valid claims in accordance with the terms of the contract. A  claim is "to make a demand for money, for property, or for enforcement of a right provided by law".     

__________________________________________________________________

"Shakedown" Street?

So there's the "Shakedown" Street" rub,  speculation about an inevitable visit to "shakedown street" for Travelers and AIG, cited in Risk's article who are among the insurers that insured the Defendants ( that were clients of Ringler Associates),  IF discovery uncovers a smoking gun and Plaintiffs are able to prove their case.  I repeat the Plaintiffs must prove their case.

"Dead Giveaway"

Then there's the Shalamar rub, featuring the gratuitous cite of Rick Woolams, AIG's top claims executive, cited as "according to someone who heard the speech". Most in the industry know who that was since the "informant" repeated those words so much as to remove all doubt. The tell tale cite gives away the source as easy as "Peter Piper Picking a  Peck of Pickled Peppers", so poorly disguised because the "anonymous" source repeatedly cited that 2012 Woolams speech in San Francisco to anyone whose ear could be bent. Anyone in the structured settlement industry at the time could identify the anonymous source based on that Rick Woolams' cite.  If the anonymous source wanted to remain anonymous they should've stopped using that cite!

The Woodyard Situation

In my blog of February 9, 2015, Ringler Sued | Structure Broker Mike Woodyard in Alleged $4MM Ponzi Scheme,  the issues in that case are clearly laid out, in particular that the way the premiums were submitted to Woodyward and/or his entity were highly irregular and not at all characteristic of  how members of the structured settlement industry generally do business. At time of posting there have been no criminal charges against W. Michael Woodyard filed in any Federal Court (source; Pacer.gov) and I have no idea if has been arrested.  Sources claim "they  (FBI) know where he is"

This lawsuit IS NOT weighing on structured settlements.  If anything at all, it is weighing on Ringler Associates.  If Ringler Associates goes out of business because the alleged actions that have associated with its former rogue broker  have been proven and a monetary award or settlement together with everything else exceeds its resources, rendering it unable to continue as a going concern, its producers will land elsewhere.  For Risk to say it weighs on the industry is pure baloney.

Richard Risk admits that "the complaint suggests that the annuities in question were not structured annuities"  If so then why would that weigh on the structured settlement industry?

Risk Never Addressed ELNY Before Now

Before the disgruntled ex-structured settlement consultant Dick Risk became a lawyer he was a structured settlement consultant affiliated with Summit Settlement Services. He wrote an informative newsletter that I personally subscribed to. He posted articles from those newsletters on the Risk Law Firm website. I looked today and was not able to locate one newsletter article or commentary about the ELNY situation.

So for the first time "weatherman" Risk  says in the LifeHealthPro article: 

"A key issue: Did the claims professionals or Ringler’s consultants know prior to securing ELNY annuities that ELNY was unlikely to be able to meet its future obligations?

This is no idle conjecture. I was a structured settlement consultant during the 1980s, when ELNY was issuing structured annuities.  At the time, there were clear warnings about ELNY’s future given its excessive reliance on the unstable junk bond market. [ is Risk going to appear as a witness in the case?]

Moreover, Baldwin United's failure in 1983 had already shown how a run on assets at an under-capitalized insurer could cripple its ability to meet future obligations.

Despite the warning signs, many claims professionals were known for pushing the use of ELNY annuities to save money, even as ELNY’s under-capitalization became too obvious to ignore". 

If such was the case, why has Disgruntled Dick Risk not written about ELNY in 30 years. 

Where is Risks' criticism of his SSP colleagues who wrote Executive Life or  ELNY annuities?

ELNY Lawsuit Challenges

1. Again, Plaintiffs' lawyers must prove their case.
2. A number of plaintiffs in a 2012 class action claimed the failure of ELNY was due to mismanagement by the New York Liquidation Bureau.
3. Proving the all eggs in one basket was a unilateral decision in a lawsuit settlement, that by definition is a compromise.

 

 

 

Structured Settlement With Index-Linked Annuity Payment Adjustments

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Structured settlements can include an S&P 500 index-linked annuity adjustment feature, thanks to Pacific Life Insurance Company, which rolled out its rider on April 17, 2014, following its obtaining a favorable IRS Private Letter Ruling. It is now available for structured settlement quotes on both structured settlements and for structured attorney fees. Here is my introductory video which explains the index-linked annuity adjustment rider and its application for settlements in personal injury, medical malpractice, aviation, construction accidents, product liability and other disputes that qualified for damages under IRC 104, and legal fees.

Pacific Life issued structured settlement annuities in New York, through its subsidiary Pacific Life and Annuity Company. The New York company also offers the index linked annuity payment adjustment rider, which bears the acronym ILAPA.

 

<At the time of posting, the company currently holds an A+ (Superior) rating by A.M.Best. For more information, a structured settlement quote, or a discussion of your settlement planning needs please contact John Darer at (203)325-8640 or (888)-325-8640- toll-free. John Darer and 4structures.com LLC are listed as A.M Best Recommended Expert Service Providers.

Defense Structured Settlement Company | Defense Only?

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

Is it necessary for a structured settlement consultant to be defense only, or plaintiff only, to be effective to meet your needs?  Is it not more important that the structured settlement consultant be a credentialed expert, with experience in his or her field?

One of my industry colleagues from California has just registered the domain name defensestructuredsettlement.com and on another website is taking at least a decade old sales pitch to plaintiff lawyers, to defense lawyers and adjusters (i.e. why you need a exclusively oriented structured settlement broker).  How ironic it is that the owner of defensestructuredsettlement.com, structured settlement broker, Jeff Anderson, is listed on the roster of Settlement Planners, Inc., which states on its website as of this morning:

"In all other aspects of a personal injury case, you call in experts to support your position or counter the defense. Why would you then hand your client over to the opposition (or their agents) when it comes time to plan and structure their settlement?"

"Historically, the defense has structured the settlement in a personal injury case. In many of those cases the interests of the defendant were served over the needs of the injured plaintiff. No longer. At Settlement Planners, the plaintiff comes first. We are solely retained by the injured party to create settlement plans that are tailored to meet the needs of your client. Not the defendant".

It is also ironic considering that the head of Jeff Anderson's brokerage is known to do both plaintiff and defense work. in California. 

Mr. Anderson is an industry veteran of over 20 years. In my opinion his approach [and that of a few others with a similar bent] of "exclusive orientation" makes for nice marketing, but is meaningless in reality.

While both parties benefit from and should have a professionally credentialed structured settlement expert, if I was a claims adjuster or attorney I'd seek out the best expert I could find. That being said the structured settlement business is, and always has been a relationship business and trust is something that must be earned over time, through experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Growing the Primary Market | "The World According to Carp"

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Patrick Hindert's latest series on growing the primary structured settlement market smacks of sour grapes.

Patrick Hindert is a former President of the National Structured Settlements Trade Association, although no longer a member (purportedly over a dispute over how much he should pay in dues). Predictably he trashes NSSTA, although now he no longer has the opportunity to draw on material he was exposed to from sitting on NSSTA committees such as its legal committee.

Hindert's criticism centers on the same old story : single claimant qualified settlement funds and the structured settlement transfers.

The single claimant qualified settlement fund "ship" has sailed. Get over it.

It is worthy to note that a single claimant qualified settlement fund,  if it were ever ruled on favorably by Treasury, would increase opportunities to sell recycled structured settlements to personal injury claimants and structured attorney fees backed by those cash flows.

Coincidentally the primary market panel at the 2013 NASP annual meeting features a discussion about recycled structured settlements. 

Regarding structured settlement transfers, Hindert states

"IRC 5891 and the state structured settlement protection statutes have  solidified structured settlement transfers (i.e. factoring transactions) into a growing market that complements and potentially expands the traditional primary market. The ability of structured settlement recipients to sell their payment rights subject to judicial oversight and approval arguably improves the structured settlement product by adding a liquidity feature in the event of "over structuring"  or unanticipated cash requirements. Instead of capitalizing on settlement transfers to improve and expand its market, NSSTA (through bylaw amendments)  has threatened its members with suspension or expulsion if they sollicit(sic) or promote secondary market transactions. By continuing to criticize "structured settlement factoring", without participating in the secondary market, NSSTA and its members undermine their own product".

The structured settlement secondary market provides a valuable service to structured settlement annuitants and other payees of periodic payments such as lottery recipients.

The good that the structured settlement secondary market does however,  is undermined by bad business practices such as forum shopping, examples of which you can read about in my recent posts. Note that our information is that the practice is not confined to an isolated company.

Forum shopping mocks the law, mocks Congress and state legislatures that respectively, passed VTTRA 2001 and state structured settlement protection acts and, if left unchecked, deprives the United States Treasury of tax revenue from the 40% excise tax that should be levied on those that violate the federal law.

Is it Hindert's opinion that these practices should not be criticized?

Furthermore, and unrelated to forum shopping, the June 28, 2013 deposition of David Springer of Sovereign Funding Group in the Woodbridge case portrays a stunning example of deceptive business practices of some in structured settlement secondary market that are even tolerated by the Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland!  

Springer is a guy who admitted under oath

• to making up stuff on his LinkedIn profile

• to creating false LinkedIn profiles, false Google+ profiles,

• who endorsed himself via his fake personae in public facing social media,

• to submitting false information to the Better Business Bureau and

• to impersonating his wife because he was not legally permitted to work in the United States at the time he did it. Many factoring companies highlight their BBB records as something that consumers should rely on. That's unfortunately very Pollyanna.

Is it Hindert's opinion that these practices should not be criticized?

Then you have companies that are not registered to do business in the states in which they solicit business. One company that is a member of NASP that for years has listed a corporate headquarters in Maryland, with the Better Business Bureau,  but the State of Maryland provided us with a certification that the company, was never registered in Maryland (using either of the two business names contained in its BBB report). Nevertheless the company has an accredited A+ from the Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland. Other companies operate out of mailboxes or virtual offices so the consumer or investor never really knows where they really are.

Is it Hindert's opinion that these practices should not be criticized?

Still other companies rely on lead generation websites, financially incentivizing poorly supervised search engine optimization folks who have little to no financial background, or licensing.  The unfortunate "sprouts"are numerous sites with bogus testimonials, bogus review sites, financially illiterate blog posts and spam.  Who is supervising these companies?

Is it Hindert's opinion that these practices should not be criticized?

Why is it that Hindert has not discussed ways to improve the regulation of the structured settlement secondary market to help consumers and individual investors?

On the subject of recycled structured settlements, what industry standards are put in place to avoid conflicts of interest? 

For an investor, including a primary market claimant, an attorney structuring their fees, or  a retiree to get a better return, the discount rate to the seller must be higher meaning less cash or more periodic payments sold to raise what the seller needs.  The best cash flow for an investor may be from the factor that charges a 16% discount rate to the seller as opposed to a 7% or 8% rate.

I'm skeptical that Hindert is blind to the fact that NSSTA members are knowledgeable about and, DO in fact have long standing relationships and open dialogue with members of the structured settlement secondary market and refer business.    

Hindert's commentary often engenders a narrow focus on growth of the personal injury market, but fails to recognize other products and solutions offered by NSSTA members, both within and outside of the personal injury space, both within and outside of litigation solutions, a fact that would be underscored by simply scanning a few industry websites instead of trading on old information in his noggin.

Is it the job of NSSTA to be the"ginsu"of trade associations, to teach its members how to sell life insurance and long term care?

These are solutions that I offer my clients, but frankly, as someone who is certified in long term care (CLTC), I obtain my long term care information from the AALTCi, FMOs, American College courses and external sources. 

Does NASP lead the structured settlement secondary market, or is it led by its members? What influence does a single company that controls over 70% of the secondary market have over NASP?

What business is NSSTA in?

On October 14, 2013 Hindert recognized that "the United States structured settlement industry" ,   played an important historical role influencing the development of risk based capital (RBC) requirements for insurance companies". There's a start.  And in 1993 there was only NSSTA. Read more about RBC in Hindert's text book.

 

 

 

 

Aviva Structured Settlements and the Athene Buyout of Aviva USA Business

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC

The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) agreed to bless Athene Holding Ltd.'s pending $1.55 billion acquisition of UK insurer Aviva PLC's  U.S. operations after a series of negotiations with Athene Annuity and Apollo representatives, the agency said August 14, 2013.  Athene is largely funded through an Apollo affiliate, and the Apollo manages money for the insurance company.

Apollo and Athene agreed to a set of new rules not typically required of insurers, the agency said. They include heightened capital standards to protect against potential losses and tougher disclosure requirements.

New York DFS has highlghted, and continues to highlight a spike in private equity firms and other investment companies moving into the annuity business.  Insurance Circular Letter 5 (2022): Acquisitions of Control and Disclaimers of Control | Department of Financial Services (ny.gov)

This trend raised concerns since such firms typically have a more short-term oriented business model than traditional insurers, and the annuity business is focused on ensuring long-term security for policyholders

As part of the new set of rules, New York Department of Financial Services wanted higher capital standards because they serve as a buffer to absorb unexpected losses. Athene Life Insurance Company of New York agreed to capital levels of not less than 450 percent and a separate backstop account with $35 million to top off those funds if they fall below a certain level. The New York regulator will also scrutinize Athene's operations, dividends, investment strategies and potential reinsurance transactions. If Athene pursues a so-called material change in its operations, it will need written approval from the New York agency first. Athene will also now have to file quarterly reports detailing its capital position.

Link to New York DFS statement on the Athene acquisition of Aviva New York dated August 14, 2013.

Aviva and Structured Settlement Annuities

A substantial amount of structured settlement annuity business has been placed with Aviva life companies and their predecessors until Aviva ceased writing new structured settlement annuity business at the end of 2008. The company has roots going back 300 years. Through a series of mergers and renamings the following compnanies wrote structured settlement annuity business and current structured settlement annuitants may be receiving payments from Aviva that originally had structured settlements paid from the following life insurance companies.

• CU Life Insurance Company
• CU Life Insurance Company of New York
• CGU Life Insurance Company
• CGU Life Insurance Coompany of New York
• Aviva Life Insurance Company
• Aviva Life Insurance Company of New York

The following qualified assignment companies applied to

• CGU Annuity Service Corporation (later  Aviva Assignment Corporation)
• CGNU London Annuity Service Corporation  (later Aviva London Assignment Corporation)The obligations of certain structured settlements funded with CU Life annuities were backed by a  surety bond issued by Commerical Union Insurance Company.

The obligations of certain obligations assigned to Aviva London Assignment Corp had a Capital Management Agreement (CMA) with Aviva UK based affiliate, CGU International Insurance.  As stated therein the agreement ensures that Aviva London Assignment will have the funds necessary to satisfy all Structured Settlement obligation to make funds available to Aviva London Assignment Corp is absolute, unconditional and continuing.

What is the impact of the Athene acquistion of Aviva on the structured settlement portfolio?

I telephoned Aviva customer service on August 22, 2013 and the response, as I expected, was that what is in the contracts will be honored. I specifically asked about the surety bonds and the Capital Maintenance Agreement obligations with those structured settlements where periodic payment obligations were assigned to Aviva London Assignment Corporation and was informed that these would still apply.

Structured settlement annuitants who wish to confirm for themselves or who have any concerns whatsoever, should contact their structured settlement consultant or Aviva directly at their toll-free number, which is 888-285-4332

What Then Happened?

About 15 months following the publication of this post, in October 2014, the fate of the CMA was learned to not be as described by Aviva. After learning of an occurrence that seemed inconsistent with what the Aviva customer service rep said in 2013. John Griffiths, an annuitant from Hawaii contacted me and after dealing with some unfortunate obfuscation, we learned in a written letter from Athene, that "the CMA was terminated according to its terms", seemingly quite the opposite of what was in Aviva's marketing materials. John Griffiths became the lead plaintiff in a successful class action lawsuit against Aviva and Athene. 

Athene ended up providing annuitants a new CMA and certain annuitants received a modest financial recovery.

It was a needless and unfortunate episode for the insurers and underscored the importance for structured settlement consumers and their advisors to be vigilant when insurers transition, or runoff their product lines.

Extensive coverage of the story can be found using the Google search on the right side of this blog

Who is Athene Annuity? 

Athene annuity is a significant underwriter of annuties in the United States. While Athene acquired the structured settlement book of Aviva, Athene does not underwrite structured settlement annuities as of the date of the last update to this blog.

The roots to Athene Annuity go back to 1905, when Liberty Life Insurance Company was started by one "Hipp"  guy,  Here is a helpful timeline from the Athene website. The company, which previously acquired former structured settlement annuity issuer Presidential Life Insurance Company,  offers some innovative retirement annuity products. At the time this blog was last updated Athene Annuity held a A (Excellent) rating from A.M. Best and a A+ from both Standard & Poors and Fitch ratings as well as an A1 from Moodys. The ratings represent an IMPROVEMENT from the ratings at the time of the Aviva/Athene deal. For more details see Financials | Athene.

Also see The best annuity companies for April 2024 | CNN Underscored Money which has ranked Athene as one of the best annuity companies as of April 2024.

Last updated April 2, 2024

 

 

 

 

 

Structured Settlement Annuities Issued by Worlds Largest Insurer Groups

by John Darer CLU ChFC CSSC RSP CLTC

Structured settlement annuities are issued by units of the world's largest insurance companies.

Units of these companies issue structured settlement annuities (by 2011 Asset Rank-non banking assets)

• MetLife Inc. #4 
• Prudential Financial Inc. #5 
• American International Group, Inc.  #8
• Manulife Financial Corp #12
• Berkshire Hathaway Inc.   #18

Units of MetLife, AIG and Berkshire also issue periodic payment reinsurance

Units of these companies are former issuers of structured settlement annuities 

• Aviva plc #11
• Aegon NV #13
• ING Groep NV #14

Source A.M. Best February 2013

Structured settlement annuities and periodic payment reinsurance are only offered through licensed life insurance agents or brokers who are appointed by the life insurance companies that issue the annuities. You can check to see if a particular agent or broker is licensed in your state by referring to the website of your state's insurance depertment (may also be referred to as Department of Financial Services).  Click here for 4structures.com's convenient web page with links to the home pages of insurance departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American General | Don't Factor If Thou Want to Keep Structured Settlement General Agent Contract

by Structured Settlement Watchdog

American General Life Insurance Company, a structured settlement annuity issuer, has amended its General Agent's contract to state, in no uncertain terms, its position against Factoring and Secondary Market activities of its appointed general agents.

A copy of the relevant section of the contract was supplied to me today by a third party  (see download below). 

The new American General Life General Agent's contract states

"General Agent or any subordinate agent under its control, without the prior consent of (redacted) shall not directly or indirectly solicit, sell, service otherwise provide advice concerning factored,factoring or secondary market transactions in which a buyer or third party purchases the rights to receive future payments from a structured settlement annuity in return for a lump sum payment to the seller.

General Agent, or any subordinate agent under its control, will not directly or indirectly engage in any factored or secondary market transactions where a member company of (redacted)Inc. is either a defendant, liability insurer, or as a fixed life annuity issuer".

Download Structured Settlement Annuity  General Agent Contract with Factoring Restriction (note, must scroll down when the Adobe document pops up)

Upon information and belief no other structured annuity issuer has such a clause in its general agency contracts.

 

 

 

United of Omaha Rolls Out Structured Settlement Annuity Program

by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC RSP CLTC

Welcome back to the "Wild Kingdom" of structured settlements, United of Omaha Life Insurance Company! The Mutual of Omaha subsidiary is in the midst of a roll out which will offer greater choices to structured settlement recipients and increase the competitiveness of the structured settlement marketplace.

A few key facts for those who are interested:

United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

Home Office: Omaha, NE

Financial Ratings

A.M. Best  A+XV (Superior)

Moodys Aa3

Standard and Poor's A+

Weiss Ratings  B+  (apparently better than United States government debt, according to Weiss Ratings' letter system)

• Qualified Assignment Company is Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlements Company  ("MOSSCO"), incorporated in the State of Connecticut.
• United of Omaha Life Insurance Company will issue a guarantee of the obligations of MOSSCO, the assignee.
• Minimum Premium $10,000
• Assignmment Fee $750
• Daily Rates on cases with a size of $250,000 or greater

Structured Attorney Fees and Rated Ages are not offered during the rollout but will possibly be part of the next phase, according to our sources.

United of Omaha is not a Structured Settlement Option in New York

United of Omaha Life Insurance Company structured annuities are not offered in the State of New York. Another Mutual of Omaha subsidiary Companion Life Insurance Company may possibly be a distribution channel for such annuities in the future.