History
  • No items yet
midpage
PHL Variable Insurance Company v. Bank of Utah
780 F.3d 863
8th Cir.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • William Close (age 74) obtained a $5 million PHL life policy in 2007 after agent-assisted application and premium-financing; application misrepresented his finances and omitted a felony conviction.
  • A two-year, non-recourse premium-finance loan funded premiums; Close personally guaranteed 25% and the policy was collateral for the loan.
  • Secondary market collapse prevented sale; Close surrendered the policy to the lender/financer (New Stream), which later sold the policy; Bank of Utah held the policy as custodian when Close died in 2011 and claimed the death benefit.
  • PHL discovered procurement misrepresentations but was barred from rescission by Minnesota’s two-year incontestability statute; PHL sued for declaratory judgment that the policy was void ab initio for lack of an insurable interest (a STOLI claim).
  • District court granted PHL summary judgment that the policy was void ab initio and that incontestability did not bar PHL’s claim; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (PHL) Defendant's Argument (Bank of Utah) Held
Whether a policy procured by or pursuant to a scheme to transfer to a stranger is void ab initio for lack of insurable interest The policy was procured under a STOLI scheme and thus is a wagering contract void as against public policy Policy purchased by insured on his own life is valid; assignment to a stranger does not render it void absent clear evidence the insured and third party agreed to a wager-type cover Reversed: Minnesota common law would not declare the Close policy void ab initio; assignment after issuance is generally valid unless narrow "cover for a wager" shown
Whether incontestability bars an insurer’s post-incontestability claim that the policy was void ab initio A void-ab-initio policy never came into force, so the incontestability statute does not apply Incontestability protects insureds/beneficiaries and requires insurers to timely investigate; defense is subject to the statute absent a statute to the contrary Reversed: Minnesota’s incontestability statute bars this late challenge; PHL’s claim is time-barred absent statutory exception
Standard for when an assignment/policy transfer defeats validity Any scheme or intent to transfer to investors (STOLI/premium financing) suffices to void the policy Void-for-wager exception limited to transactions made in bad faith as a cover for a wager; requires stronger proof (e.g., agreement to assign to an identified stranger) Court adopts narrow view: void-for-wager is a limited exception; general intent to resell or use premium financing insufficient
Whether Minnesota common law supports declaring contracts void for STOLI absent legislative change PHL: common-law public policy grounds permit voiding STOLI policies Bank: Minnesota precedent and Grigsby favor free transferability; public-policy voidance is "very delicate" and doubtful absent statute Court: Minnesota Supreme Court would decline to declare such policies void ab initio; legislative action (2009 Insurable Interest Act) is the appropriate means to address STOLI

Key Cases Cited

  • Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149 (1911) (an insured’s ownership/assignment of a policy is permissible; caveat about assignments that are covers for wagers)
  • Christenson v. Madson, 127 Minn. 225, 149 N.W. 288 (Minn. 1914) (policy procured by insured sustains beneficiary’s claim; insurable-interest rule targets stranger-originated policies)
  • Peel v. Reibel, 205 Minn. 474, 286 N.W. 345 (Minn. 1939) (assignment valid if made in good faith and not a cover for a wager)
  • Rahders, Merritt & Hagler v. People’s Bank of Minneapolis, 113 Minn. 496, 130 N.W. 16 (Minn. 1911) (courts condemn policies issued for the purpose of having them assigned; good faith required)
  • Gordon v. Ware Nat’l Bank, 132 F. 444 (8th Cir. 1904) (assignee’s insurable interest not essential if original insured had interest and assignment was not a cover for a wager)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: PHL Variable Insurance Company v. Bank of Utah
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date Published: Mar 13, 2015
Citation: 780 F.3d 863
Docket Number: 14-1210
Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.