What's Hot

    M&G agrees two bulk purchase annuity deals totalling $760m

    21 September 2023

    ELSA Welcomes New Executive Board Members

    19 September 2023

    Editor’s Letter – Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2023

    15 September 2023
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    Instagram LinkedIn Twitter
    Life Risk News
    • Home
    • Features

      Spotlight Falls on US Life Insurers’ Private Debt Investments

      14 September 2023

      The US Now The Last Remaining Traded Life Policy Market

      14 September 2023

      Re-Visiting the SEC Life Settlements Task Force More Than a Decade Later

      14 September 2023

      Generative AI Set to Transform Life Insurance Industry

      14 September 2023

      Q&A: David Blake, Professor of Finance & Director of Pensions Institute, Bayes Business School

      14 September 2023
    • Commentary

      The Critical Nature of Life Insurance Policy Due Diligence in the Life Settlement Asset Class

      14 September 2023

      Covid-19 Excess Mortality Analysis

      14 September 2023

      The Insurance Regulator Takes a Look at Funded Reinsurance

      10 August 2023

      Life Settlement Apocrypha

      10 August 2023

      UK Closed Life Funds – A Secret Returns Goldmine?

      12 July 2023
    • Events
    • Magazine
    • News

      M&G agrees two bulk purchase annuity deals totalling $760m

      21 September 2023

      ELSA Welcomes New Executive Board Members

      19 September 2023

      Prudential Financial and Warburg Pincus back new annuity reinsurer

      14 September 2023

      Ford UK pension scheme signs $450m partial buy-in deal

      14 September 2023

      European Life Settlement Association (ELSA) Hosts Successful Secondary Life Markets Conference 2023

      13 September 2023
    Subscribe
    Life Risk News
    Home»Commentary»Life Risk News Litigation Bulletin: Seck

    Life Risk News Litigation Bulletin: Seck

    Commentary 14 September 2022ArentFox SchiffBy ArentFox Schiff
    Twitter LinkedIn Email
    Litigation
    Share
    Twitter LinkedIn Email

    Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company

    On August 25, 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted a fault-based analysis framed under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (“Restatement”) to determine if life insurance policy premiums should be returned in a case where the policy is found to be void ab initio for lack of insurable interest. Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, No. 380, 2021 (D. Del. 2022) (“Seck”). In doing so, the Court effectively overruled a number of federal Delaware court decisions that have held that a life insurer is required to return premium to an investor if the policy is void for lack of insurable interests. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court to determine if the life insurer had inquiry notice that the policy may have lacked insurable interest, and how such a finding may affect the return of premium issue under the new framework provided by the Court. While the Seck decision has provided a general framework for courts applying Delaware to utilize on the return of premium issue, it has left a number of questions unanswered, such as whether a tertiary market owner is entitled to recover premiums paid by prior policy owners, and what specific inquiries should be made as to the carrier’s actual and constructive knowledge of red flags, and what inquiries an investor should make before purchasing a policy (and whether industry standards will provide a benchmark).

    In July of 2007, Brighthouse Life Insurance Co.’s predecessor received an application in New Jersey to insure the life of one Mansour Seck, identified as a 74-year-old French citizen residing in New Jersey. The Seck Policy amount was $5M; the owner and beneficiary were identified as the “Mansour Seck Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust;” and the applicant’s agent was a broker named Pape Seck. The life insurer followed its usual underwriting protocols and issued the policy.

    In 2009, after expiration of the 2-year contestability period, the Seck Policy was sold on the secondary market to EEA Life Settlements, Inc. In 2015, the Seck Policy was sold again, this time to Geronta, a hedge fund, as part of a portfolio purchase in a tertiary market transaction.

    Shortly after acquiring the Seck Policy, Geronta suspected that the Seck Policy’s insured, Mansour Seck, was fictitious. After performing an investigation and determining that the pedigree information for Mansour Seck was incorrect, in April of 2017, Geronta notified Brighthouse of its concerns. Geronta wanted to rescind the policy with the carrier and recover all of the premiums that it and the prior owner had paid for the policy. Brighthouse agreed to rescind the policy but refused to return the premiums. In 2018, Brighthouse commenced a lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court against Geronta, seeking a declaration that the Seck Policy was void ab initio for lack of insurable interest, and an order that it was allowed to retain all of the premiums that it and its predecessor had paid for the policy. Geronta counterclaimed, seeking to recover the premiums on a theory of restitution. The parties stipulated that the policy was void ab initio for lack of insurable interest. The only issue to be determined was who would get the premiums paid for the policy by the secondary and tertiary market investors.

    The Delaware Superior Court held a bench trial and ruled that Brighthouse could keep all premiums paid to keep the policy in force after April 21, 2017, the date that Geronta had told Brighthouse that it suspected that Mansour Seck was not a real insured. But the Superior Court found that Geronta was not entitled to recover any premiums that it or its predecessor had paid prior to the date that it notified Brighthouse of its suspicions. The Superior Court purported to follow the Restatement in its determination. Generally, under Restatement § 197, a party to an agreement that is unenforceable on public policy grounds cannot seek restitution (here, the recovery of premiums) unless that party is able to prove an applicable exception. The Superior Court focused on certain exceptions set forth in Restatement § 198, which may apply if the party seeking restitution proves either (a) it was excusably ignorant of the facts that caused the agreement to be unenforceable, or (b) it was not equally at fault (in pari delicto) with the other party to the contract. The Superior Court concluded that Brighthouse was not at fault because it had followed its underwriting guidelines in issuing the policy and did not have actual knowledge that the policy lacked insurable interest. The Superior Court determined that Geronta was not excusably ignorant of the problems with the policy, or equally at fault with the insurer, primarily because it had made a strategic decision not to review information that it had received regarding the policy before purchasing it, which information would, according to the Superior Court, have indicated red flags.

    Because this was a matter of first impression for the Delaware Supreme Court, it surveyed what other courts across the nation have done in similar situations and found that the courts generally have adopted one of the following approaches: (1) rescission and automatic disgorgement of premiums; (2) restitution under a fault-based analysis grounded in considerations specific to insurance policies declared void ab initio for lack of insurable interest; and (3) restitution under the Restatement. The Court specifically noted that the majority of the courts that it surveyed determined that the premiums should be returned to the investor after undertaking a fault-based analysis.

    The Court adopted restitution under a fault-based analysis as framed by the Restatement as the test to determine whether premiums should be returned when a party presents a viable legal theory, such as unjust enrichment, and seeks the return of paid premiums as remedy. It instructed Delaware courts to analyze the exceptions outlined in Sections 197, 198, and 199 of the Restatement, including whether: (1) there would be a disproportionate forfeiture if the premiums are not returned; (2) the claimant is excusably ignorant; (3) the parties are not equally at fault; (4) the party seeking restitution did not engage in serious misconduct and withdrew before the invalid nature of the policy becomes effective; or (5) the party seeking restitution did not engage in serious misconduct, and restitution would put an end to the situation that is contrary to the public interest.

    While the Superior Court had concluded that Brighthouse did not have actual notice that the policy lacked insurable interest, it failed to determine whether Brighthouse had inquiry notice of the same. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for a determination on this issue in light of the framework that it had adopted and articulated in its decision, and identified a number of facts either stipulated to by the parties or found by the Superior Court, some dating back to December of 2009, that could support a finding that Brighthouse was on inquiry notice of facts tending to suggest that the policy was void.

    The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Seck requires courts applying Delaware law to take a balanced approach and consider the carrier’s actual and constructive knowledge in addition to the conduct and red flags that may have been available to the investor that seeks to recover premiums paid on a void policy. As the Court stated, in addition to incentivizing investors to actually and thoroughly investigate all policies to avoid the risk of losing their premiums, “[a] fault-based analysis also incentivizes insurers to speak up when the circumstances suggest that a policy is void for lack of insurable interest because they will not be able to retain premiums if they stay silent after being put on inquiry notice, and they might also be responsible for interest payments. In other words, our test incentivizes each player along the chain of these insurance policies to behave in good faith.”

    But the Seck decision did not address which premiums an investor may be entitled to recover (all premiums paid for the policy by the current owner and prior investors, or just premiums that the current owner paid either directly or via a securities intermediary). And the decision did not explain the inquiries that carriers and investors should make in their respective capacities as they may pertain to the fault-based analysis under the Restatement.

    Unfortunately, the Seck decision will likely increase litigation and its related costs on the return of premium issue—a subject that was fairly straightforward, at least with the Delaware federal courts which had predominantly ordered life insurers to automatically return premium in whole or in part if the policy was found to be void for lack of insurable interest.

    By ArentFox Schiff’s Insurance & Reinsurance Practice Group

    Litigation Volume 1 Issue 5 - September 2022
    Share. Twitter LinkedIn Email

    Related Posts

    The Critical Nature of Life Insurance Policy Due Diligence in the Life Settlement Asset Class

    14 September 2023

    Covid-19 Excess Mortality Analysis

    14 September 2023

    The Insurance Regulator Takes a Look at Funded Reinsurance

    10 August 2023

    Life Settlement Apocrypha

    10 August 2023

    Comments are closed.

    Most Popular

    Spotlight Falls on US Life Insurers’ Private Debt Investments

    14 September 2023

    The US Now The Last Remaining Traded Life Policy Market

    14 September 2023

    Re-Visiting the SEC Life Settlements Task Force More Than a Decade Later

    14 September 2023

    Generative AI Set to Transform Life Insurance Industry

    14 September 2023
    Ad

    Your trusted source for capital markets participation in Life Risk

    Twitter Instagram LinkedIn
    Life Risk
    • About Life Risk News
    • Get In Touch
    • Our Team
    • Copyright Notice
    • Privacy Policy
    • Sitemap
    Coverage
    • Home
    • Features
    • Events
    • Commentary
    Subscribe

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
    Cookie SettingsAccept All
    Manage consent

    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
    Necessary
    Always Enabled
    Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
    CookieDurationDescription
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
    cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
    viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
    Functional
    Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
    Performance
    Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
    Analytics
    Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
    Advertisement
    Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
    Others
    Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
    SAVE & ACCEPT