We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • California Fines 60 Insurers for Late Life Payments

    May 7, 2015 by Arthur D. Postal, arthur.postal@innfeedback.com

    WASHINGTON – California has collected $29.8 million from approximately 60 life insurance companies based on their alleged failure to pay the state on a timely basis the proceeds of insurance policies where the owner died and the beneficiaries failed to claim the policies.

    Insurance industry lawyers say that state Controller Betty T. Yee has assessed the insurers $1.9 million in interest even though the insurers voluntarily checked their records and submitted the funds from unclaimed policies, where applicable.

    The interest charge is 12 percent based on Yee’s interpretation of California law by compounded annually.

    A spokesman for the controller said the fines were appropriate, but that insurers can request a waiver of the compounding. The fines were levied April 1, according to a Legal Alert by Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan.

    As a result, industry lawyers are being told to be careful when reporting to California. That’s because the unclaimed property reporting forms used nationally are not really written for life insurance, said Mary Jo Hudson, a lawyer at Bailey Cavalieri LLC in Columbus, Ohio,

    “They require reporting the ‘dormancy date’ in a column labeled ‘Date of Last Contact’,” she said.

    The insurers who are being assessed are smaller insurers that were not targets of the multi-state investigation of larger insurers, which constitute 61 percent of the U.S. life insurance market, according to the California controller’s office and the Sutherland Legal Alert. They did not settle with California and 35 other states on the multi-state agreements whereby the companies paid fines, remitted the proceeds of unclaimed policies and agreed to run the Social Security Death Master File on their records quarterly.

    Hudson, who has served as a consultant to the American Council of Life Insurers on the issue, said even those who settled are complaining.

    She argued that, “insurers under the market conduct settlement agreements are getting overly penalized.”

    She said that, as a result of the California policies, “Insurers now need to be more strategic when reporting in any state so they are not inadvertently billed for unnecessary interest charges.”

    John Hill, a spokesman for the controller, said that the insurers were assessed for late remitted properties associated with the 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 reports. He said the total amount of the interest assessments for the four years was approximately $1.9 million.

    “That being said, the controller remains open to negotiate a Global Resolution Agreement with these companies,” Hill said. Moreover, Hill said the companies can request a waiver of the interest “upon a showing of reasonable cause for the late remittance.”

    However, that would force these companies to run their policies against the DMF and to conduct a due diligence search for the beneficiary, which would be a huge expense for small insurers, according to several lawyers.

    These smaller companies would also have to agree, in the event the DMF indicates that the policy owner is dead and they have not been able to locate the beneficiary, to turn such property over to the states three years from the date of death.

    According to the Legal Alert from Sutherland, most insurers report unclaimed monies to California based on a dormancy period that begins to run three years from when the insurer received a claim and/or notice of death.

    The interest was assessed on the remaining insurance companies, which voluntarily agreed to remit the unclaimed property after checking their records, according to a Sutherland lawyer.

    A Sutherland lawyer said the fine is being compounded and that the total levy from the controller could exceed the value of the policy.

    Hill argued that it is “incorrect to say that the interest is ‘compounded’,” especially since the plain language of the statue states that it is “simple” interest.

    That being said, Hill acknowledged that “it is possible that the interest calculated could equal or exceed the amount of the policy.”

    However, he added, those situations would be the exception rather than the rule and would depend upon the date of death of the policy owner and the date the property was ultimately remitted to the State of California.

    Hill said California authorities are acting that way because they have found that rather than remitting the property three years from the date of death, “what we find is that – despite the death of the owner – the company maintains possession of the policy and treats the it as ‘in-force’,” which allows the company to use the accumulated cash to continue premiums payments long after death.

    Historically, companies should have used the limiting age or date a claim was filed but not perfected, Hudson said.“Actually, company staff used a variety of dates that sometimes tried to respond actually to the request (i.e, the last date of correspondence or contact).”

    Hudson explained that under the settlement agreements, insurers are required to use Date of Death in this column, even though that is not the law in any state.

    “These companies will be hardest hit by the California controller’s penalizing policy,” she said.

    “Where the company is not in a settlement agreement, companies are receiving these bills when staff inadvertently insert the insured’s date of death as reported from the DMF rather than use the date of the DMF match or the date when the insurer learned of the insured’s death (per the NCOIL Model & some states, but ironically not under California law,” Hudson said.

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on May 7, 2015 by Arthur D. Postal, arthur.postal@innfeedback.com.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency