Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlement Metrics - 2

Why should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Although this question may seem counter intuitive to current structured settlement stakeholders, it represented a fundamental issue when structured settlements were introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The historic sales rationale for defendants and liability insurers to endorse, promote and fund structured settlements:

• Studies show 9 out of 10 lump sum recipients "squander" their entire settlement within five years.
• Structured settlements enable recipients to live free of public benefits.
• Structured settlements reduce claim costs.
• Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.
• Structured settlements represent good public policy.

Although still marketed by some sales persons, the first two justifications for defendants and liability insurers to promote and fund structured settlements have been exposed as "myths" by Jeremy Babener and David Lillesand respectively. No studies exist that show 9 of 10 lump sum recipients dissipate their lump sums within five years. Worse, frequent use of the pejorative term "squander" in the context of this dissipation study myth attaches an unfair and unwarranted stigma to injury victims. Even assuming injury victims dissipate lump sums, the reasons could be as varied as payment for justifiable expenses with inadequate settlements (compared with actual lost wages, medical expenses and inflation) or pay down strategies to qualify for Medicaid.

The idea that seriously injured structured settlement recipients can survive without public benefits is nonsense - a Tea Party pipe dream. At least prior to health care reform, no insurance company would offer medical insurance at any price for brain damaged babies, serious burn victims, or quadriplegics. Medicaid represents the only medical insurance available for seriously injured (special needs) claimants whether they settle with a lump sum or a structured settlement. As underscored by Lillesand, "without Medicaid, seriously injured accident victims die" because they cannot gain access to our medical system without an insurance card. Completely contrary to this public benefit myth, how best to integrate structured settlements with Medicaid and Medicare represents an increasingly important focus for personal injury settlement planning.

Based upon the above sales rationale, however, most U.S. liability insurers and self-insured defendants have developed structured settlement programs. According to a 2011 "National Litigation Management study" commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (Litigation Management Study), structured settlement represents the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

Many structured settlement programs endorsed and promoted by liability insurers and self-insured defendants (defense structured settlement programs) share certain common characteristics including:

• Approved lists of annuity providers (life companies).
• Approved "brokers" who also serve as agents for the approved life companies.
• Proactive case identification of "good candidates" for structured settlements.
• "Early involvement" by the defense structured settlement broker.
• Defense broker attendance and participation at negotiations and mediations.
• Structured settlement funding by defendants or their liability insurers utilizing annuity financing ("buy and hold') or qualified assignments.

Some defense structured settlement programs also feature:

• Defense funding utilizing an affiliated annuity provider;
• Commission sharing by the defense broker with the defendant or liability insurer. Note: such commission sharing generally utilizes a life insurance agency affiliated with the defendant or liability insurer and may or may not be disclosed to injury victims, their attorneys, mediators and/or judges.

The National Litigation Management Study also found that "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them." When asked "how effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", more than 74 percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse. In the words of Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions: "to be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, and satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."

Many defense structured settlement programs do include performance metrics of which the most common are:

• Annuity premium generated by the structured settlement program; and
• Success ratio - the percentage of targeted structured settlement cases that ultimately settle with a structured settlement.
• Note: some defense structured settlement programs also attempt to measure the cost savings resulting from the use of structured settlements.

Why, when and how should defendants or liability insurers ever agree to settle a personal injury case using a structured settlement?

Bottom line: to answer that question and to evaluate the "quality, performance and satisfaction" of their structured settlement programs, defendants and liability insurers should analyze (and perhaps re-think):

• Program justification
  • Structured settlements reduce claims costs.
  • Structured settlements help defendants settle cases that would otherwise go to trial.
  • Structured settlements represent good public policy.
• Program characteristics
• Program metrics
  • Annuity premium generated by the structured settlement program.
  • Structured settlement success ratio.
  • Cost or cost savings.

S2KM will continue to discuss "structured settlement metrics" in subsequent blog posts which also will be featured on the structured settlement wiki.

Structured Settlement Metrics - 1

A 2011 National Litigation Management study, commissioned by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM) and conducted by Revere Advisory, identifies structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

CLM membership includes: corporations, insurance companies, government agencies, defense attorneys and law firms plus individuals "who participate in litigation and the management thereof (Corporate Counsel; Risk, Claims and Litigation Managers; Adjusters and Service Providers etc.)."

CLM's litigation management study results are summarized in the cover article (titled "The Fab Four") of the Fall 2011 issue of CLM's "Litigation Management Magazine" which highlights four "key findings" that "emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in the study:

• "Litigation management effectiveness has CEO-level visibility like never before.
• "Litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them.
• "Organizations are taking a more active role in procuring and managing litigation management service provider relationships.
• "Litigation management ROI quantification is both difficult and valuable."

Among the 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed, the "most penetrated" external exclusive or preferred service provider programs were:

• Structured settlement - 63%
• National reporting program - 48%
• Surveillance - 48%
• Outsourced processing - 21%
• Records retrieval - 20%.

The CLM article quotes Mike Saltman, President of Esquire Corporate Solutions, who describes the "shift in thinking" about national service provider programs:

"These programs are about much more than cost savings, although the savings can be substantial and can be in and of themselves a primary motivation to create these programs. To be truly successful, national service programs must be able to deliver the very metrics and analytics that participants said they are seeking: quality, performance, satisfaction levels. These are the metrics that a national service provider must be able to give to its clients in today's environment."

When asked "How effective are your metrics in measuring the effectiveness of your litigation program", however, 74 (plus) percent of the study's participants rated their available metrics as "Fair" or worse:

• Very effective - 13%
• Effective - 13%
• Fair - 38%
• Poor - 34%
• Very poor - 3%.

Although the CLM article summarizing the litigation management study highlights structured settlements, it does not identify or suggest specific metrics or analytics for liability insurers, self-insured defendants or government entities to determine the effectiveness or success of their structured settlement programs.

As defendants and their insurers continue to re-think structured settlements in the context of legal and financial developments, here are some questions they might consider:

• What performance metrics do you utilize to evaluate the effectiveness of your structured settlement program?
• Which metric is most important?
• Which metric is most difficult to obtain or confirm?
• Do structured settlements increase or decrease your claims costs?
• How do you measure the impact of structured structured settlements on your 1) current and 2) future claims costs?
• What is your structured settlement success ratio?
• How effective are your metrics in measuring the success of your structured settlement program?
• What changes in your program would improve your structured settlement performance?

For additional S2KM analysis to help stakeholders re-think structured settlements, see the structured settlement wiki as well as future S2KM blog posts about structured settlement metrics.

ELNY Liquidation - 2

The New York State Insurance Department has posted a News Release on its website announcing the proposed liquidation plan for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) and providing additional information to supplement the petition for liquidation filed September 1, 2011 by New York Insurance Superintendent James Wrynn.

In the announcement, Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, states "Executive Life does not have enough assets to meet all its obligations, a fact made far worse by the recent financial crisis. Protecting the people who depend on payments from the company was challenging, but working with the guaranty associations and the life insurance industry, we have devised a plan that will maximize payments and ensure the fairest possible outcome for everyone."

According to the News Release:

• ELNY's proposed restructuring plan will double ELNY's assets and "should fully protect approximately 84 percent of those who currently benefit from [ELNY's] payments."
• The exact impact of the ELNY restructuring plan on each payee will not be known until at least mid-October after the guaranty funds finalize the amount of their contributions.
• The anticipated ELNY restructuring plan will include:
  • "ELNY's remaining assets of approximately $900 million.
  • "An estimated $730 million in contributions from state life insurance guaranty associations.
  • "Approximately $40 million from life insurance companies for enhanced benefits for contract owners, payees and beneficiaries who are not covered by any state guaranty association to provide coverage up to $100,000.
  • "Approximately $25 million from life insurance companies for a further 'top-up' benefit to increase the coverage up to $250,000 for beneficiaries who are not covered by any state guaranty association, or whose maximum state guaranty association coverage is below $250,000."

The News Release also provides a special call center number for ELNY contract owners and beneficiaries.

In a separate, but related, announcement on its website, the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA) has posted a revised schedule for its September 7-9, 2011 Members' Participation Council (MPC) meeting in Reston, Virginia. The MPC holds quarterly meetings to discuss the latest developments in NOLHGA-related insolvencies and the insolvency arena. The revised September 8, 2011 MPC meeting agenda allocates more than six hours for a closed session and working lunch to discuss ELNY.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis of the ELNY liquidation, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Addendum (September 8, 2011): Industry insiders point out that the New York Insurance Department ELNY News Release is not totally consistent with the proposed ELNY Restructuring Agreement included with the New York Insurance Superintendent's September 1, 2011 ELNY Petition for Liquidation. Readers should also note: 1) the newly proposed ELNY restructuring plan has not yet been finalized or approved; and 2) the prior  ELNY "Agreement in Principle" announced in 2007 never materialized.

Addendum 2 (September 8, 2011): The New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB) has now posted on its website the ELNY proposed "Restructuring Plan", "Order to Show Cause" and "Supporting Motion Papers".

ELNY Liquidation - 1

James Wrynn, New York's Insurance Superintendent, (Superintendent and/or Rehabilitator, and/or Liquidator) has petitioned the Supreme Court of Nassau County New York for an Order of Liquidation and Approval of a Restructuring Agreement for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY).

In addition to the Petition, the Superintendent's September 1, 2011 court filing also includes an Affidavit by Ivy Chang , an Accounting Manager for the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Petition, a proposed Order to Show Cause plus numerous related Exhibits including the Proposed Restructuring Agreement and prior ELNY financial reports from 2006 to 2010.

In the Petition, the Superintendent requests the court to issue a Show Cause Order:

• Setting a hearing on the Petition;
• Approving a briefing schedule;
• Approving the form of notice and method of service for ELNY's policyholders and creditors;
• Ordering that payments to structured settlement and other annuitants be continued pursuant to the ELNY Rehabilitation Plan;
• Continuing the injunctions provided by the Rehabilitation Order.

ELNY entered rehabilitation in 1991 and has been operating under the supervision of the NYLB, as agent for the Superintendent, pursuant to a Rehabilitation Plan approved by the Nassau County Supreme Court in 1992. The Rehabilitation Plan permitted the sale of ELNY's existing policies to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) except for structured settlement annuities and certain other non-surrenderable contracts which MetLife has also administered under a separate servicing contract.

According to the Petition, ELNY will have obligations to approximately 9700 policyholders as of January 1, 2012. In a separate communication to its members, the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), which has been working closely with New York officials on the ELNY matter, estimated that approximately 4800 ELNY structured settlement annuities remain in force. Prior to entering rehabilitation, ELNY sold approximately 8000 structured settlement annuities. To date, all ELNY structured settlement annuities have been paid in full and on time.

As justification for ELNY's proposed liquidation, the Petition states: "ELNY's financial condition is progressively deteriorating" and "ELNY will be unable to pay its outstanding lawful obligations as they mature in the regular course of business and further efforts to rehabilitate ELNY are futile."

Ivy Chang's Affidavit adds:

• "ELNY experienced financial difficulties because of unfavorable investment results, with sustained low interest rates and poor capital market performance during significant periods."
• "The Rehabilitator began negotiating with various life insurance industry parties, and in 2007, he announced that he had secured a commitment, in principle, of funds that would permit the continuation of full benefit payments for all ELNY policyholders."
• "Until the financial crisis of 2008, it appeared that such a restructuring of the Rehabilitation Plan would be possible."

According to the Petition: "the unprecedented global economic crisis and resulting market collapse of 2008 had a significant negative impact on ELNY's retained assets and made continued implementation of the Rehabilitation Plan without a liquidation unfeasible." The most recent ELNY financial statements (as of December 31, 2010) show assets of $905,945,200 compared with liabilities of $2,474,317,342 resulting in a negative surplus of $1,568,372,142.

The proposed ELNY Restructuring Plan, which is subject to court approval, was jointly prepared by the Superintendent and the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations (NOLHGA). Key provisions:

• A formula to determine the present value of all ELNY annuity contracts using a 4.25% discount rate and a jointly-agreed upon mortality table.
• A liquidation value assigned to each annuity contract which will be reduced by a percentage based upon the ratio of the liquidation value of ELNY's assets to the aggregate liquidation value of all contracts.
• This restructured value for each annuity contract is expected to lower benefit payments to approximately 34% of any remaining obligations.
• The participating state guaranty associations (PGAs) will supplement the ELNY benefit payments for annuity contracts eligible for state guaranty association coverage up to the maximum allowable by their state guaranty association laws. This maximum can vary between $100,000 and $500,000.
• In addition, New York's Article 75 Guaranty Association (its second of two life insurance guaranty associations) has agreed to provide coverage for ELNY contracts on a pro rata basis up to its statutory cap of $50 million. The Article 75 Guaranty Association coverage applies to ELNY contracts issued prior to August 2, 1985, and not otherwise covered by the PGAs, regardless of where the owner, payee or beneficiary resides.
• A consortium of life insurance companies has agreed to provide hypothetical guaranty association coverage up to $100,000 for ELNY policyholders and/or payees who are not otherwise covered by a state guaranty association.
• The Superintendent and NOLHGA have reached an agreement in principle with these same life insurance companies for additional, supplemental benefit enhancements subject to the completion of definitive documentation.
• Assuming ratification by all PGAs (anticipated by October 1, 2011) and all of the above contributions, the Superintendent and NOLHGA estimate 84% of ELNY contracts will be fully paid under the Restructuring Agreement - or 79% without the supplemental benefit enhancements.
• To replace ELNY and administer ELNY's restructured contracts, the PGAs and life insurance industry will form a special purpose not-for-profit captive insurance company ("NEWCO") under the laws of the District of Columbia.
• ELNY policyholders will receive a policy certificate to evidence NEWCO's reinsurance and assumption of all or the appropriate portion of ELNY's contract liabilities.
• Although insurance company professionals and independent directors will manage NEWCO, the Superintendent (as Liquidator) will exercise additional oversight and will retain the ability to petition the Nassau County court for relief if NEWCO fails to honor its obligations.
• The Liquidator and NEWCO will attempt to facilitate the efforts of any owners of ELNY structured settlement annuities that decide to provide additional payments to payees and or beneficiaries.
• At defined future dates, NEWCO will attempt to transfer all of NEWCO's liabilities to a financially-strong third party life insurance company and remit the net proceeds back to the ELNY estate.
• Although creditors must present proofs of their claims within four months of the proposed Order of Liquidation, all policyholders who appear on ELNY's books and records will be deemed to have filed timely proofs of claims.

The Petition states the Superintendent proposes to give notice to ELNY policyholders, creditors and all other interested parties of the Petition and its requested relief and to allow such parties to present their objections. The Petition further proposes a court hearing on or about March 15, 2012 to consider the petition and a briefing schedule.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis of Executive Life and ELNY's anticipated liquidation, including an Executive Life timeline, see the structured settlement wiki.

Addendum (September 9, 2011): The Supreme Court of Nassau County New York has entered the Order to Show Cause requested by the Superintendent of the New York Insurance Department as Rehabilitator (now Liquidator) for ELNY. The Order sets March 15, 2012 as the date for hearing on the entry of orders described above and requires the Superintendent, following submission to the Court of the schedule to the Restructuring Agreement, to give notice to each ELNY policyholder that will show the projected liquidation plan treatment of benefits under individual ELNY annuities. The schedule is anticipated to be submitted later this month after state Guaranty Associations have approved the restructuring plan and agreed to specific funding commitments.