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 (21,244)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (422)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (804)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (275)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • April 2024
  • 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
  • Early Termination of Annuities Not Permitted

    May 18, 2015 by Robert Delano, Sands Anderson PC

    Since investing can be a risky business with investments dropping in value from time to time, investors seeking steady income with minimal risk are sometimes attracted to an annuity’s guaranteed-income feature. A recent case from the Western District of Virginia, however, illustrates why an investor should first research whether an annuity is the right choice for his investment portfolio before choosing to go the annuity route.

    In Hart v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 163033 (W.D. Va. 2014), the District Court refused to permit a conservator of an elderly annuitant to terminate her annuities before all benefit payments had been made.

    In Hart, the adult daughter applied for and purchased two single-premium immediate annuities, both of which listed her elderly mother as the owner and both the daughter and mother as joint annuitants. About four years into the lives of the annuities, an attorney appointed as the mother’s conservator sued the insurance company seeking to cash and terminate both annuities before all benefit payments had been made pursuant to the annuity documents. The conservator complained that these annuities were non-compliant under Medicaid guidelines and prevented the mother from receiving Medicaid benefits. He requested the immediate surrender and full payment of both annuities for use in support of the mother’s needs and medical care.

    Both annuity policies stated on their cover pages that: the insurer agreed to make the annuity benefit payments pursuant to the payment schedule provided; each annuity policy represented a legal contract between the owner and the insurer and should be read carefully; and if the owner was not satisfied, he could return the policy pursuant to the policy’s 20-day “free-look” provision for a full refund and cancellation of the annuity. Specifically, the annuities set forth the benefit payment schedule beginning with the initial payment date, payable on a monthly basis for a set number of years or upon the death of the last annuitant, whichever occurred later. Both annuities stated that the applicant elected in the application the benefit payment option selected; that the selected benefit payment option and payment schedule could not be changed; and that the annuity would terminate upon the satisfaction of all of the requirements of the benefit payment option selected.

    Based upon its review of the annuity policies, the Court found that the annuities had no cash value and were not subject to early termination.

    In sustaining the insurer’s motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that both annuity policies clearly stated their terms and that both annuities contained the required 20-day “free-look” period. Further, the Court applied to these annuities the well settled rule that an applicant for an insurance policy is charged with notice of the statements contained in the underlying contract which, in this instance, were the annuity policies.

    Originally Posted at JD Supra Business Advisor on May 18, 2015 by Robert Delano, Sands Anderson PC.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency