Structured settlement

Last updated

A structured settlement is a negotiated financial or insurance arrangement through which a claimant agrees to resolve a personal injury tort claim by receiving part or all of a settlement in the form of periodic payments on an agreed schedule, rather than as a lump sum. As part of the negotiations, a structured settlement may be offered by the defendant or requested by the plaintiff. Ultimately both parties must agree on the terms of settlement. A settlement may allow the parties to a lawsuit to reduce legal and other costs by avoiding trial. [1] Structured settlements are most widely used in the United States, but are also utilized in Canada, England and Australia.

Contents

Structured settlements were first utilized in Canada as part of the settlement of birth defect claims arising out of pregnant mothers ingesting Thalidomide. [2] Structured settlements are now used in a wide variety of types of lawsuit settlements such as aviation, construction, auto, medical malpractice and product liability.

Structured settlements may include income tax and spendthrift provisions. Often the periodic payments will be funded through the purchase of one or more annuities, that generate the future payments. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called periodical payments, and when incorporated into a trial judgment may be called a "structured judgment". [3]

United States

Structured settlements became more popular in the United States during the 1970s as an alternative to lump sum settlements. [4] The increased popularity was due to several rulings by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an increase in personal injury awards, and higher interest rates. The IRS rulings stated that if certain requirements were met, claimants would owe no federal income tax on the amounts received. [5] Higher interest rates result in lower present values, hence lower cost of funding of future periodic payments.

In the United States, structured settlement laws and regulations have been enacted at both the federal and the state levels. Federal structured settlement laws include various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. [6] State structured settlement laws include structured settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment statutes. There are 47 states with structured settlement protection acts, created by a model promulgated by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators ("NCOIL"). Of the 47 states, 37 are based in whole or in part on the NCOIL model act. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations affect structured settlements. A structured settlement may be used in conjunction with settlement planning tools that help preserve a claimant's Medicare benefits. A Structured Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (MSA) generally costs less than a non-structured MSA because of amortization of the future cash flow over the claimant's life expectancy, as opposed to funding all the payments otherwise due in the future in a single non-discounted sum today.

Structured settlements have been endorsed by many of the nation's largest disability rights organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, [7] and for a time there was a Congressional Structured Settlement Caucus. [8]

The typical structured settlement arises and is structured as follows: An injured party (the claimant) comes to a negotiated settlement of a tort suit with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a settlement agreement that provides as consideration, in exchange for the claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, an agreement by the defendant (or, more commonly, its insurer) to make a series of periodic payments.

If any of the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e. the obligation to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life under the annuity. In some instances the purchasing company may purchase a life insurance policy as a hedge in case of death in a settlement transfer.

Assigned cases

The defendant, or the property/casualty insurance company, generally assigns its periodic payment obligation to a third party by way of a qualified assignment ("assigned case"). [9] An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130. [10] Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment companies because without it the amount they receive to induce them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded from the income of the assignment company. This provision of the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but would typically have no source from which to make the payments.

The qualified assignment company receives money from the defendant or property/casualty insurer, and in turn purchases a "qualified funding asset" to finance the assigned periodic payment obligation. [11] Pursuant to IRC 130(d) a "qualified funding asset" may be an annuity or an obligation of the United States government.

In an assigned case, the defendant or property/casualty company does not wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on its books. Accordingly, the defendant or property/casualty insurer transfers the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment, to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company, will require the defendant or property/casualty company to pay it an amount sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation (either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This method of substituting the obligor is desirable for defendants or property/casualty companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation on their books. A qualified assignment is also advantageous for the claimant as it will not have to rely on the continued credit of the defendant or property/casualty company as a general creditor. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.

Unassigned cases

In the less common unassigned case, the defendant or property/casualty insurer retains the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The defendant or property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. One of the reasons an unassigned case is less popular is that the obligation is not truly off the books, and the defendant or casualty insurer retains a contingent liability. While a default is a rare occurrence, contingent liability did come into play with the liquidation of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York. [12] Some annuitants suffered shortfalls, and a number of obligors at the wrong end of unassigned cases made up the difference.

Tax issues

In 1982, Congress adopted special tax rules to encourage the use of structured settlements to provide long-term financial security to seriously injured victims and their families. [13] [14] These structured settlement rules, as codified in the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act of 1982, which established Section 130 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) and in amendments to section 104(a)(2) of the Code, have been in place working effectively since then. In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress extended the structured settlements to worker's compensation to cover physical injuries suffered in the workplace. A "structured settlement" under the tax code's terms is an "arrangement" that meets the following requirements.

Damages on the account of personal physical injury, physical sickness and workers compensation are income tax free due to exclusions provided in IRC section 104. [15] The structured settlement tax rules enacted by Congress lay down a bright line path for a structured settlement. Once the plaintiff and defense have settled the tort claim in exchange for periodic payments to be made by the defendant (or the defendant's insurer), the full amount of the periodic payments constitutes tax-free damages to the victim. The defendant, or its insurer, may assign its periodic payment obligation to a qualified assignment company (typically a single purpose affiliate of a life insurer) that funds its assumed obligation with an annuity purchased from its affiliated life insurer. The rules also permit the assignee to fund its periodic payment obligation under the structured settlement via U.S. Treasury obligations. However, this U.S. Treasury obligation approach is used much less frequently because of lower returns and the relative inflexibility of payment schedules available under Treasury obligations. In this way, with a qualified assignment, there is a legal novation, the defendant or insurer can close its books on the liability, and the claimant can receive the long-term financial security of an annuity (or annuities) issued by one or more financially strong life insurance companies.

What makes this work is the tax exclusion to the qualified assignment company afforded by IRC section 130. [16] Without the tax exclusion, the cost of assignment would be higher, because the assignment company would need to recognize the premium as income. The resulting net after tax amount would be insufficient to fund the assumed obligation.

To qualify for special tax treatment, a structured settlement must meet the following requirements:

Sales of rights to structured settlement payments

A claimant who has agreed to a negotiated structured settlement elects to receive part of their settlement money at the time of settlement, and part of their settlement money in the future through a negotiated, customized schedule of periodic payments that are "fixed and determinable as to amount and time of payment." [16] The life insurance companies who underwrite these periodic payment obligations and the associated qualified assignment companies, must comply with the Internal Revenue Code 130, [16] which, in part, does not allow for acceleration or modification of payments. Options exist for structured settlement annuitants to sell or transfer the rights to future periodic payments to purchasers of structured settlement payment rights, mostly known as structured settlement factoring companies. Some life insurers, such as Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska, and former structured annuity issuers Allstate Life Insurance Company and Symetra, offer to buy part or all of one's structured settlement payment rights in return for a lump sum cash provided such transaction complies with IRC §5891. [6]

Although many beneficiaries of a structured settlement find that the settlement suits their needs, some may experience changed financial circumstances and find themselves unable to obtain funds through conventional financing or other sources. They may want to obtain funds from the structured settlement in order to pay down debt, help pay for a house, help pay for a child's college tuition, or for other significant financial needs. At the same time, companies that buy structured settlements have been known to take advantage of beneficiaries' circumstances in order to obtain the settlements for a relatively small price. [17]

The act of the sale and purchase of structured settlement payment rights is known as a structured settlement factoring transaction. [6] For example, a structured settlement payment stream of 20 years could be transferred in exchange for one discounted payment now.

Any sale of structured settlement payment rights will require the approval of a judge to comply with the local state structured settlement protection act and IRC 5891. Enforcement of structured settlement Approval is not a given. In 2012, a Tennessee Chancery Court issued an order denying a payee's transfer of workers' compensation settlement payments under a structured settlement agreement. Judge William E. Lantrip held that (i) workers' compensation payments are not within the definition of "structured settlement " under the Tennessee Structured Settlement Protection Act, Tenn. Code. Ann. §47-18-2601 [18]

Enforcement of the state system of structured settlement protection acts has come under heavy scrutiny after a highly publicized story of alleged abuse of a cluster of annuitants who received structured settlements as part of lead paint settlements in Baltimore City appeared in the Washington Post on August 25, 2015. [19] leading to rapidly passed reform of the Maryland Structured Settlement Protection Act [20] and lawsuits brought against the Chevy Chase MD company that originated the deals and a number of its executives by the Maryland Attorney General, [21] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [22] and a plaintiff's class action.

On September 14, 2017 a class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, [23] alleging Portsmouth Virginia Circuit Court judges were complicit in an "Annuity Fraud Enterprise" scheme, in which a Virginia lawyer and 79th District delegate Steve Heretick was the central figure, representing JG Wentworth, Seneca One, 321 Henderson Receivables and other settlement purchasers, that allegedly violated the rights of thousands of structured settlement annuitants. Plaintiffs allege violations of RICO statutes against multiple defendants, violations of right to due process an seek a constructive trust against all defendants and all nominal defendants which include several life insurers who issue the annuities.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insurance</span> Equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment

Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss in which, in exchange for a fee, a party agrees to compensate another party in the event of a certain loss, damage, or injury. It is a form of risk management, primarily used to protect against the risk of a contingent or uncertain loss.

Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI), is life insurance on employees' lives that is owned by the employer, with benefits payable either to the employer or directly to the employee's families. Other names for the practice include janitor's insurance and dead peasants insurance. When the employer is a bank, the insurance is known as a bank owned life insurance (BOLI).

Universal life insurance is a type of cash value life insurance, sold primarily in the United States. Under the terms of the policy, the excess of premium payments above the current cost of insurance is credited to the cash value of the policy, which is credited each month with interest. The policy is debited each month by a cost of insurance (COI) charge as well as any other policy charges and fees drawn from the cash value, even if no premium payment is made that month. Interest credited to the account is determined by the insurer but has a contractual minimum rate. When an earnings rate is pegged to a financial index such as a stock, bond or other interest rate index, the policy is an "Indexed universal life" contract. Such policies offer the advantage of guaranteed level premiums throughout the insured's lifetime at a substantially lower premium cost than an equivalent whole life policy at first. The cost of insurance always increases, as is found on the cost index table. That not only allows for easy comparison of costs between carriers but also works well in irrevocable life insurance trusts (ILITs) since cash is of no consequence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Subrogation</span> Legal doctrine whereby a person is entitled to enforce the rights of another

Subrogation is the assumption by a third party of another party's legal right to collect debts or damages. It is a legal doctrine whereby one person is entitled to enforce the subsisting or revived rights of another for their own benefit. A right of subrogation typically arises by operation of law, but can also arise by statute or by agreement. Subrogation is an equitable remedy, having first developed in the English Court of Chancery. It is a familiar feature of common law systems. Analogous doctrines exist in civil law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span> Legal term for an injury to a person

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

A demand letter, letter of demand,, or letter before claim, is a letter stating a legal claim which makes a demand for restitution or performance of some obligation, owing to the recipients' alleged breach of contract, or for a legal wrong. Although demand letters are not legally required they are frequently used, especially in contract law, tort law, and commercial law cases. In some cases, evidence of attempts to settle are required before a court case will be accepted by the court, and demand letters are commonly used to fulfill this requirement. For example, if one anticipates a breach, it is advantageous to send a demand letter asserting that the other side appears to be in breach and requesting assurances of performances. Demand letters that are not responded to may constitute admissions by silence. Also, a demand letter will often generate a denial letter stating the basis for rejecting claim, and is sometimes a good indication of what defenses will be raised if a suit is brought later.

In the United States, an annuity is a financial product which offers tax-deferred growth and which usually offers benefits such as an income for life. Typically these are offered as structured (insurance) products that each state approves and regulates in which case they are designed using a mortality table and mainly guaranteed by a life insurer. There are many different varieties of annuities sold by carriers. In a typical scenario, an investor will make a single cash premium to own an annuity. After the policy is issued the owner may elect to annuitize the contract for a chosen period of time. This process is called annuitization and can also provide a predictable, guaranteed stream of future income during retirement until the death of the annuitant. Alternatively, an investor can defer annuitizing their contract to get larger payments later, hedge long-term care cost increases, or maximize a lump sum death benefit for a named beneficiary.

Under European Union law, an annuity is a financial contract which provides an income stream in return for an initial payment with specific parameters. It is the opposite of a settlement funding. A Swiss annuity is not considered a European annuity for tax reasons.

A structured sale or structured installment sale, is a special type of installment sale pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. In an installment sale, the seller defers recognition of gain on the sale of a business or real estate to the tax year in which the related sale proceeds are received. In a structured sale, the seller is able to pay U.S. Federal income tax over time while having the seller's right to receive those payments guaranteed by a high credit quality alternate obligor. This obligor assumes the buyer's periodic payment obligation. Transactions can be arranged for amounts as small as $100,000.

Pain and suffering is the legal term for the physical and emotional stress caused from an injury.

A structured settlement factoring transaction means a transfer of structured settlement payment rights made for consideration by means of sale, assignment, pledge, or other form of encumbrance or alienation for consideration. In order for such transfer to be approved, the transfer must comply with Internal Revenue Code section 5891 and any applicable state structured settlement protection law.

A life annuity is an annuity, or series of payments at fixed intervals, paid while the purchaser is alive. The majority of life annuities are insurance products sold or issued by life insurance companies however substantial case law indicates that annuity products are not necessarily insurance products.

In the United States, the question whether any compensation plan is qualified or non-qualified is primarily a question of taxation under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Any business prefers to deduct its expenses from its income, which will reduce the income subject to taxation. Expenses which are deductible ("qualified") have satisfied tests required by the IRC. Expenses which do not satisfy those tests ("non-qualified") are not deductible; even though the business has incurred the expense, the amount of that expenditure remains as part of taxable income. In most situations, any business will attempt to satisfy the requirements so that its expenditures are deductible business expenses.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teacher Retirement System of Texas</span> Teacher retirement investment fund of Texas

Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) is a public pension plan of the State of Texas. Established in 1937, TRS provides retirement and related benefits for those employed by the public schools, colleges, and universities supported by the State of Texas and manages a $180 billion trust fund established to finance member benefits. More than 1.6 million public education and higher education employees and retirees participate in the system. TRS is the largest public retirement system in Texas in both membership and assets and the sixth largest public pension fund in America. The agency is headquartered at 1000 Red River Street in the capital city of Austin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defined benefit pension plan</span> Type of pension plan

Defined benefit (DB) pension plan is a type of pension plan in which an employer/sponsor promises a specified pension payment, lump-sum, or combination thereof on retirement that depends on an employee's earnings history, tenure of service and age, rather than depending directly on individual investment returns. Traditionally, many governmental and public entities, as well as a large number of corporations, provide defined benefit plans, sometimes as a means of compensating workers in lieu of increased pay.

According to the law, the term adjustment may appear in varied contexts, as a synonym for terms with unrelated definitions:

The Empowering Patients First Act is legislation sponsored by Rep. Tom Price, first introduced as H.R. 3400 in the 111th Congress. The bill was initially intended to be a Republican alternative to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, but has since been positioned as a potential replacement to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The bill was introduced in the 112th Congress as H.R. 3000, and in the 113th Congress as H.R. 2300. As of October 2014, the bill has 58 cosponsors. An identical version of the bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator John McCain as S. 1851.

Property and casualty insurance guaranty funds are part of the property and casualty guaranty fund system, a non-profit, state-based, statutorily-created insurance consumer protection system that protects policyholders if an insurer goes bankrupt.

Secondary market annuity is a where an owner of an annuity sells it to a third party in exchange for a lump sum. The effect is that the seller swaps a stream of periodic payments for a immediate lump sum payment. The initial holder of the annuity may have received a structured settlement through a court settlement, insurance claim, or other means but wants or needs immediate liquidity.

References

  1. ↑ Edwards, J. Stanley (2009). Tort Law for Legal Assistants. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning. pp. 197–8. ISBN   1-4283-1849-6.
  2. ↑ Hindert, Daniel (1986). Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements. New York, NY: Law Journal Press. pp. 1–36. ISBN   1-58852-037-4.
  3. ↑ Riccardi, Anthony H.; Ireland, Thomas R. (Fall 2000). "Structured Judgments and Periodic Payments in New York: A Unique and Complex System for Tort Awards". Journal of Legal Economics. 10 (5).
  4. ↑ Johnson, Denise (5 August 2013). "The Beginnings of Structured Settlements". Claims Journal. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  5. ↑ Bendian, Marc (September 2005). Structured Settlement Payments and Periodic Judgements. Law Journal Press.
  6. 1 2 3 "26 U.S. Code § 5891 - Structured settlement factoring transactions". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  7. ↑ Vaughn, Eric (26 March 2016). "Structured Settlements & People with Disabilities". National Structured Settlement Trade Association. Archived from the original on 5 September 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  8. ↑ "Congress' Obligation on Structured-Settlement Fraud - Commentary". Roll Call. The Economist Group. 29 August 2014.
  9. ↑ Wagner, Wayne (July 1999). "Negotiating a Structured Settlement". GPSolo. 15 (3). Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  10. ↑ "26 U.S. Code § 130 - Certain personal injury liability assignments". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
  11. ↑ Nowotny, Gerald R. (January 2013). "Tax Law: Contingency Fees and Structured Settlement Annuities". GPSolo. 30 (1). Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  12. ↑ "Executive Life Insurance Company of New York - Policyholder Information". NOLHGA. The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations.
  13. ↑ "JCX-58-82". The Joint Committee on Taxation. 22 December 1982. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
  14. ↑ Public L. No. 97-473, 96 Stat. 2605 (Jan. 14, 1983).
  15. ↑ "26 U.S. Code § 104 - Compensation for injuries or sickness". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 "26 U.S. Code § 130 - Certain personal injury liability assignments". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  17. ↑ "Maryland attorney general urges structured settlement reforms". The Baltimore Sun. Associated Press. 25 February 2016. Archived from the original on 2017-09-05. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  18. ↑ "Tennessee Court Denies Transfer of Workers' Compensation Payments". The National Law Review. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. 2012-07-05. Retrieved 2012-07-12.
  19. ↑ McCoy, Terrence (25 August 2015). "How companies make millions off lead-poisoned, poor blacks" . Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-07-30. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
  20. ↑ "Maryland Senate Bill 734" (PDF). General Assembly of Maryland. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
  21. ↑ Wells, Carrie (24 July 2017). "Attorney General's office and attorneys spar over settlement for lead paint victims". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  22. ↑ "CFPB Sues Access Funding for Scamming Lead-Paint Poisoning Victims Out of Settlement Money". CFPB. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 21 November 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
  23. ↑ Larry G. Dockery, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v Stephen E. Heretick, 321 Henderson Receivables, LLC, JG Wentworth Receivables, LLC, Seneca One Finance, Inc., Structured Settlement Investments, LP, Structured Settlement Purchaser John Doe Inc. Purchaser Defendants 1-100 and John Doe Individual Defendants 1-100 and New York Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Symetra et al*. United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:2017:cv-04114-MMB

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.