Thrivent Financial For Lutherans v. State of Florida, Dept. of Financial Services
145 So. 3d 178
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Thrivent Financial for Lutherans sought a declaratory statement from the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) about when life-insurance proceeds become “due and payable” under section 717.107.
- Section 717.107 governs when life insurance funds are presumed unclaimed and ties the dormancy period to when funds become “due and payable as established from the records of the insurance company.”
- Section 627.461 requires settlement “upon receipt of due proof of death and surrender of the policy.” Thrivent argued this controls the insurer’s records-based determination.
- DFS issued a declaratory statement saying proceeds are due and payable at the insured’s death (triggering the dormancy period) and that insurers must use due diligence (e.g., search death databases) to detect deaths.
- Thrivent challenged DFS’s interpretation; the First DCA reviewed whether the agency’s reading was clearly erroneous and consistent with statutory text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thrivent) | Defendant's Argument (DFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When do life-insurance proceeds become “due and payable” under § 717.107(1)? | Under § 627.461 and the phrase “as established from the records of the insurer,” proceeds are due only when insurer’s records show receipt of due proof of death and surrender. | Proceeds are due at the moment of the insured’s death, which starts the dormancy period even if no claim is filed. | Court: Reversed DFS. Proceeds are due when insurer’s records establish claim—i.e., upon receipt of proof of death and surrender (or under § 717.107(3) when insurer knows of death or limiting age is reached). |
| Whether § 717.107(3) is superfluous if death automatically makes proceeds due | Thrivent: Section (3) provides alternative means to deem a policy matured when actual proof is lacking; automatic maturity at death would render (3) meaningless. | DFS: Not directly addressed; interprets (1) to trigger at death regardless. | Court: Agrees with Thrivent; read to avoid surplusage—(3) serves distinct situations where actual proof is absent. |
| Whether the general rule in § 717.102 overrides § 717.107 specific rule | Thrivent: Specific § 717.107 governs life-insurance funds; the general rule in § 717.102 cannot override it. | DFS: Relies on § 717.102 that property is payable for purposes of the chapter notwithstanding lack of demand. | Court: Specific statute controls; § 717.107 governs and limits when proceeds are due. |
| Whether statute imposes affirmative duty on insurers to search death databases | Thrivent: No such duty appears in the plain text of § 717.107; imposing one would rewrite the statute. | DFS: Statute and policy support imposing a duty to search databases (e.g., Death Master File) to discover deaths. | Court: Declined to impose such a duty; statutory text does not require affirmative searches—policy changes belong to Legislature. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regal Kitchens, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 641 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (agency declaratory statement review standard)
- Eager v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 580 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (administrative ruling contrary to plain statutory language is clearly erroneous)
- Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins., 840 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2003) (avoid construing statute as surplusage)
- Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1992) (give full effect to related statutory provisions)
- Murray v. Mariner Health, 994 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2008) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 748 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (courts may not rewrite statutes based on policy)