Beyond Structured Settlements

Structured Settlement Metrics - 5

How satisfied with their structured settlements are injury victims (and their attorneys) who have opted for structured settlements instead of, or in addition to, lump sum alternatives?

As part of S2KM's series discussing structured settlement metrics and analytics, this blog post addresses that question by summarizing selected results from three structured settlement surveys related to customer satisfaction:

• NSSTA 2006 Survey - as summarized during both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2007 Winter Meeting and 2007 Annual Meeting;
• AIG 2007 Survey - as reported on the AIG website and summarized during the NSSTA 2008 Annual Meeting.
• J.G. Wentworth 2008 Survey - as reported in a press release on October 29, 2008 and a media report on November 5, 2008.

In prior blog posts, S2KM examined structured settlement "quality" and "performance" metrics and analytics in the context of a 2011 National Litigation Management Study sponsored by the Council on Litigation Management (CLM). That study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives.

In a subsequent blog post, S2KM will provide commentary and suggest conclusions about customer satisfaction with structured settlements based upon the results of the three surveys.

NSSTA Survey - The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) survey consisted of attorneys involved in structured settlements (43 telephone surveys) and structured settlement recipients (1275 telephone and Internet surveys). Titled: "A Study of the Structured Settlement Process Conducted on behalf of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association", the survey was directed by Robert E. Hoyt, the Dudley L. Moore, Jr. Chair of Insurance at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. Among the results:

• Structured settlement recipients:
  • 65% said they had not heard about structured settlements prior to settlement.
  • Most were uncertain whether a structured settlement consultant was involved with their case.
  • 34% recalled receiving educational information while 75% of this 34% said the information was helpful.
  • 66% first learned about structured settlements from their trial attorney.
  • 75% said they were very happy their settlement included structured settlement annuities.
  • 75% said they would recommend a structured settlement.
• Attorneys involved in structured settlements:
  • 95% said they are proponents of structured settlements.
  • 70% said they retain a structured settlement consultant at least for some cases.
  • When asked: "Whom do you prefer to use for purposes of financial planning for your clients?", the attorneys responded:
    • 30% - Trust company/department.
    • 28% - Financial planner.
    • 23% - Structured settlement consultant.
    • 19% - No response.

AIG Survey - Conducted by Esearch.com, Inc., the AIG survey included 1000 U.S. participants. 80% of the participants had no connection with any personal injury case while 20% had previously been involved directly or indirectly through a family member in a personal injury case. Participants who had no connection to a personal injury case were asked to read two hypothetical scenarios and answer questions on how they would react. Those with a direct connection to a personal injury case were not only asked to read the hypothetical scenarios, but also to answer questions based upon their real life experience.

• In AIG's first survey hypothetical, AIG provided no information about structured settlements. Results:
  • 65% of respondents said they would elect a lump sum of which
  • 49% said they believed they could make their own long term decisions and
  • 26% said the lump sum was more appropriate to pay bills and pay off debt.
• In AIG's second survey hypothetical, AIG provided survey respondents with information about structured settlements - presumably this "AIG Backgrounder" which AIG features on its website. Results: 73% of respondents said they would elect a structured settlement.
• 206 of 1000 participants said they or their family had been involved with a personal injury case. Results for those 206 participants:
  • 86% had elected lump sum.
  • 57% said they were unaware of structured settlements.
  • 64% said their attorneys did not inform them about structured settlements.
  • 57% of those that elected a lump sum said their settlement funds were already depleted.
  • 71% of respondents who said they favored a structured settlement did so "to provide a regimented stream of income designed to cover expenses".

J.G. Wentworth Survey - The J.G. Wentworth survey consisted of 115 participants who had previously sold some or all of their structured settlement payment rights to Wentworth and focused upon the reasons they: 1) agreed to a structured settlement; and 2) subsequently sold (transferred) some or all of their structured settlement payment rights. According to a J.G. Wentworth marketing executive, the survey resulted from recommendations made at the 2008 Structured Settlement Thought Leadership Conference. Relevant questions and results:

How many years ago did you settle your original lawsuit?

• 70.9% - More than 10 years ago.
• 14.5% - 5 to 10 years ago.
• 13.6% - 1 to 5 years ago.
• 0.9% - Past 12 months.

When you settled your original lawsuit, why did you accept payments over time rather than a single lump sum of cash?

• 23.4% of the participating structured settlement recipients said they never were given a lump sum option.
• 38.3% had been minors whose settlements were approved and/or selected by judges and guardians.
• 38.3% of the respondents offered the following reasons for accepting a structured settlement:
  • 23.4% - Payments over time seemed like a better deal.
  • 7.4% - Not sure I could manage a large amount of cash.
  • 6.4% - To pay future medical expenses or special needs.
  • 1.1% - Faster way to settle.

How satisfied are you that you accepted a structured settlement?

• 25.0% - As a minor, a structured settlement was considered the best option.
• 24.1% - Mostly satisfied.
• 21.3% - Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
• 18.5% - Completely satisfied.
• 6.5% - Slightly dissatisfied.
• 4.6% - Completely dissatisfied.

Do you wish you and your attorney had negotiated for a single lump sum settlement?

• 31.5% - No.
• 27.8% - As a minor, I was unable to negotiate my settlement terms.
• 20.4% - Maybe.
• 10.2% - Yes.
• 10.2% - I don't know.

When you settled your original lawsuit, how well informed were you about structured settlements?

• 30.5% - Due to my status as a minor, I was not informed.
• 27.6% - Very well informed.
• 24.8% - Not well informed.
• 17.1% - Well informed but still had questions post-settlement.

Why did you sell all or part of your structured settlement?

• 60.2% - Pay bills.
• 8.3% - Start a business.
• 8.3% - Home improvement.
• 5.6% - Pay for education.
• 5.6% - Cash made more sense than waiting.
• 4.6% - Buy a house.

Did selling your structured settlement help solve your financial problem?

• 40.7% - Mostly.
• 32.4% - Yes.
• 21.3% - Only helped a little.
• 5.6% - No, it did not help.

Would you sell payments again?

• 36.3% - Maybe.
• 30.1% - No.
• 18.6% - Yes.
• 8.0% - Probably.
• 7.1% - I have already sold all of my payments.

If you sold only part of your settlement, do you plan to keep the rest of your payments as a structured settlement?

• 42.3% - Yes.
• 35.1% - I don't know.
• 9.0% - No, I plan on selling all of my payments.
• 8.1% - I already sold all of my payments.
• 5.4% - No, I plan on selling some of my payments.

For complete S2KM reporting and commentary about structured settlement metrics and analytics, see the structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA and NASP 2010 Educational Conferences - 3

"Protect and Preserve" or "Improve and Grow".

These polar-opposite imperatives for the structured settlement industry represent S2KM's two strategic lenses for reporting and analyzing simultaneous educational programs this week in Las Vegas sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert, will attend portions of the NSSTA conference (as a NSSTA member and former NSSTA President) and participate in NASP's Friday morning "Industry Analysis" program (as a moderator and speaker). S2KM's continued reporting and commentary about the NSSTA and NASP conferences will appear on this S2KM blog ("Beyond Structured Settlements") as well as S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

NSSTA's strategic mandate is to "protect and preserve".

Question: what exactly does NSSTA want to "protect and preserve"?

The simple answer: Internal Revenue Code sections 104(a) and 130.

More strategically, what NSSTA wants to "protect and preserve" (to the extent possible) are business models and business practices ("good old days") that existed prior to:

• 1986 - Jim Lokey completed the first structured settlement transfer;
• 1991 - Executive Life insolvency;
• 1993 - Congress enacted IRC 468B and introduced qualified settlement funds;
• 1994 - Weil lawsuit settlement permitting structured settlement agents to work directly with claimants and plaintiff attorneys;
• 2001 - Congress adopted IRC 5891 and defined "structured settlement" as well as rules for structured settlement transfers;
• 2010 - Hartford settled the Spencer class action lawsuit (and departed the structured settlement business) following allegations of civil RICO and state fraud violations by Hartford, its agents, brokers and attorneys.

One result of NSSTA's "protect and preserve" mandate has been a "dumbing down" of NSSTA's educational programs - at least from a strategic perspective. Some of NSSTA's technical discussions are excellent. For example, NSSTA's legal committee has re-emerged as a leading structured settlement educational resource. And NSSTA's CSSC certification program continues to receive positive reviews despite low attendance and the lack of a continuing education (CLE) requirement.

NSSTA's primary educational problem is the application of its narrow and political strategic framework ("protect and preserve" as opposed to "improve and grow") for its educational programs. For example, NSSTA never invites knowledge leaders from NASP or SSP (or anyone critical of NSSTA political objectives) to participate in NSSTA's educational programs. For another related example, NSSTA educational programs never provide strategic discussions ("Industry Analysis") with alternative perspectives.

Bottom line: NSSTA's educational programs have fallen behind NASP and SSP who now represent the benchmarks for structured settlement educational excellence. For further S2KM reporting about NSSTA's educational demise, see: S2KM's analysis of NSSTA's 2009 educational program. Unfortunately, NSSTA's announced 2010 educational program looks like "the same old, same old" - at least from S2KM's strategic perspective.

By comparison with NSSTA, NASP will devote three hours of its 2010 educational program this week in Las Vegas specifically to "Structured Settlement Industry Analysis". This portion of the NASP program is subtitled: "How to Improve and Grow the Structured Settlement Industry".

Announced participants for this strategic discussion include industry knowledge experts who are members of NASP, SSP and NSSTA plus Jeremy Babener as an independent writer and analyst. Other participants include: Robin Shapiro, Earl Nesbitt, Matt Bracy, Andrew Savysky, Peter Vodola, Richard Risk, John Darer and Patrick Hindert - and continues prior NASP strategic discussions that featured: Stephen Harris, Jack Meligan and Michael Upchurch among others.

Spencer v. Hartford - 8

If YOU are a defendant (or insure or represent defendants), how do YOU save money using structured settlements - post Spencer v. Hartford?

What are your structured settlement risks - if you don't fully disclose your structured settlement business practices?

What are your NEW structured settlement best business options and practices following Spencer v. Hartford?

To begin re-thinking structured settlements (post Spencer v. Hartford), S2KM recommends a recent article written by Jeremy Babener titled "Structured Settlements and Single Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds: Regulating in Accordance with Structured Settlement History".

See especially Section IV titled: "Helping the Wrong Party" for background research and analysis about defendants attempting to save money using structured settlements - published prior to the announced proposed settlement of the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit.

Spencer v. Hartford - 7

What are the critical questions for defendants (and your insurers and your re-insurers and your attorneys) resulting from the proposed settlement of the Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit - assuming YOU, as a defendant, participate in funding structured settlements?

Question number 1: What are your risks for non-disclosure and/or lack of full disclosure?

Question number 2: What information do you need to disclose - and to whom and when?

Question number 3: Assuming you fully disclose, how do you save money using structured settlements?

For a valuable (pre - Spencer v. Hartford settlement) analysis about how defendants save money using structured settlements, see Section IV "Helping the Wrong Party" in Jeremy Babener's article titled: "Structured Settlements and Single-Claimant Qualified Settlement Funds: Regulating in Accordance with Structured Settlement History".

Spencer v. Hartford - 6

Why and when should defendants, and/or their insurance companies and/or their reinsurance companies, ever agree to fund a structured settlement using either a "buy and hold" strategy or an "IRC section 130 qualified assignment" - as opposed to paying cash or using an IRC section 468B Qualified Settlement Fund?

The traditional answer from the traditional structured settlement industry:

• YOU, the defendant, save money using structured settlements - and;
• YOU face no future risk (or almost no future risk) so long as:
• YOU use IRC section 130 qualified assignments.

How does this traditional answer square with the recent Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit and proposed class action lawsuit settlement?

What are the most important lessons for defendants, and their insurers and reinsurers, and their attorneys, from the proposed Spencer v. Hartford settlement?

For prior S2KM reporting about Spencer v. Hartford, see S2KM's blog post Spencer v. Hartford - 5.

SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings - 8

NSSTA scheduled something totally unexpected and outrageous for its 2010 Annual Meeting. NSSTA invited Dan Clark to discuss NSSTA, the structured settlement industry and ethics.

When has NSSTA and/or the structured settlement industry ever engaged a better or more timely critic?

Clark was introduced by Joseph O'Reilly and presented himself as a former disabled person who advises professional athletes and teams (among others) on achieving high performance.

Clark's discussion about ethics and structured settlements was the antipodal response to the Rev. Oliver William's ethics discussion during the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting. Rev. Williams asked his NSSTA audience to identify structured settlement business conduct that caused "shocked disbelief" among NSSTA members. The only answer from NSSTA in 2009 was "structured settlement factoring".

Clark's primary message for NSSTA: "what the F... is the matter with YOU?"  Clark started his discussion by answering his own question and then educated and challenged his 2010 NSSTA audience using stories and analogies. Clark's examples, highlighting current industry conduct and performance, were simple and accurate.

Clark compared NSSTA and the structured settlement industry with the "1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers". The "professionals" who play the game for commissions but never win championships. "Professionals" who create problems rather than solve problems.

Clark challenged NSSTA to change from within: "To improve industry performance, you must discuss both sides of every issue and do what is right."

Strategic questions:

• Will Dan Clark's message wake-up the structured settlement industry?
• Who among the NSSTA leaders: 1) attended Dan Clark's presentation? and, more importantly, 2) understood Dan Clark's message?
• If Karen Meyers, quoting the late James Corman, is correct - that structured settlement professionals are "on the side of the angels":
  • Why is NSSTA so secretive?
  • Why the closed-door meetings?
  • Why the lack of disclosure and transparency for NSSTA's own members?

Strategic follow-up: among the NSSTA presentations S2KM attended in Washington, D.C., only Joseph DiGangi acknowledged and appeared to understand Dan Clark's message. In less than 30 minutes, DiGangi repeated and improved his one hour discourse from the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting about settlement consulting.

For S2KM's complete reporting and analysis of DiGangi's 2009 NSSTA presentation about settlement consulting plus S2KM's continuing coverage about structured settlement associations, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings - 6

This S2KM blog post is the first of two S2KM blog posts about the SSP and NSSTA 2010 tax panels and is also part of S2KM's blog series about the SSP and NSSTA 2010 annual meetings.

The SSP and NSSTA tax panels offered the industry's best-ever discussions about structured settlement tax issues. This S2KM post introduces the SSP and NSSTA tax panel participants. Subsequent S2KM blog posts will summarize the tax panel discussions and provide additional S2KM commentary. For prior S2KM reporting about the SSP and NSSTA, see S2KM's structured settlement wiki.

SSP's tax panel

• Richard Risk as organizer and moderator. One of the plaintiff attorneys in the Spencer v. Hartford class action and honored as an SSP "Life Member" during the SSP 2010 meeting.
• Michael Montemurro - Branch Chief, Office of Associate General Counsel of the IRS.
• Daniel Hindert - Trial attorney based in Salt Lake City. Co-author of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" with Joseph Dehner and S2KM's Managing Director, Patrick Hindert. Co-author with Craig Ulman of a 2005 American Bar Association article for judges about structured settlement factoring. Author of a 2010 article about Section 468B Settlement Funds for the Utah Association for Justice.
• Gregg Polsky - Law professor formerly at Florida State University and now teaching at the University of North Carolina. Co-author with Brant Hellwig of a 2010 law review article titled "Taxing Structured Settlements" published in the January 2010 edition of the Boston College Law Review.
• Brant Hellwig - Law professor at the University of South Carolina
• Jeremy Babener - author during 2010 of several public policy articles about structured settlements. Babener's articles are available on his website Tax Structuring. S2KM's reviews of Babener's writing and interviews with Babener are featured on S2KM's structured settlement public policy wiki. In addition to participating on the SSP tax panel, Babener spoke separately at the SSP meeting about "Justifying and Expanding the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy".

NSSTA's tax panel

• Michael Miller as organizer and moderator. Former co-chairman of NSSTA's legal committee. Also summarized the Spencer v. Hartford settlement at the NSSTA meeting.
• Michael Montemurro - Branch Chief, Office of Associate General Counsel of the IRS.
• Kirk Van Brunt - a member of the NSSTA legal committee and a structured settlement taxation subject matter expert.

SSP and NSSTA 2010 Annual Meetings

This blog post begins S2KM's reporting about the 2010 Annual Meetings of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP - May 2-4) and the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA - May 4-6).

Patrick Hindert, S2KM's Managing Director and primary blog and wiki author, is a former Executive Director of SSP and former President of NSSTA. Hindert will attend both the SSP meeting and NSSTA meeting. Hindert will lead a discussion at the SSP 2010 annual meeting titled "Structured Settlement Public Policy". S2KM's prior reporting about SSP and NSSTA is available on S2KM's structured settlement wiki. S2KM also publishes the structured settlement public policy wiki.

SSP and NSSTA have each published their advanced educational program summaries:

SSP (May 2 - May 4) - at the Washington D.C. Marriott at Metro Center

• MSP and SCHIP Compliance - Doug Brand
• Marketing Foundations - Frank Maguire
• The Anatomy of a Life Care Plan - Paul Deutsch
• Working with Life Care Plans: an Economist's perspective - Frederick Raffa
• The AAJ Legislative View - John Bowman
• Justifying and Expanding the Structured Settlement Tax Subsidy - Jeremy Babener
• The Structured Settlement Tax Panel - Richard Risk; Michael Montemurro; Jeremy Babener; Daniel Hindert; Gregg Polsky; Brant Hellwig.
• Structured Settlement Public Policy - Patrick Hindert
• Settlement Planning for Minors - Joseph Tombs
• Growing Your Settlement Planning Practice - Mark Newton
• Litigation Update - Anthony Alfieri
• Medicare Set-Aside Panel - Doug Shaw, Jason Lazarus; Mark Popolizio
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance Panel - Erica Cooper; Katie Fox; Jason Lazarus; Mark Popolizio
• Medical Underwriting for Structured Settlements - Rosemary Brindamour.

NSSTA (May 4 - May 6) - at the Washington D.C. Grand Hyatt

• Opening Remarks - Dan Durbin
• Washington Legislative Update - Eric Vaughn
• Congressional Keynote - John Lewis
• NSSTA Legal Committee Update - Peter Vodola; Ilana Hanau; Craig Ulman.
• Congressional Chiefs of Staff - Debbie Curtis; Kristin Nicholson; Derek Harley; Kate Winkler; Jim Brandell;
• Congressional Luncheon - Joe Crowley;
• The Truth about Scott Rothstein - Peter Arnold
• Capital Hill Briefing - Eric Vaughn
• Capital Hill Meetings and Reception - Steny Hoyer; Bob Ethridge.
• Medical Underwriting - Rosemary Brindamour; Hilary Topalian.
• Congressional Keynote - Dave Camp
• Congressional Keynote - Pete Stark
• Ethics - Dan Clark
• The Future of NSSTA - Michael Kelly; Eric Vaughn; Joe Bornstein.
• Congressional luncheon - Peter Roskam.
• Settlement Planning - Karen Meyers; Joseph DiGangi.
• Structured Settlement Tax Issues - Rafael Gonzalez; Doug Shaw; Jessica Smythe.

25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts

Health care reform (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), enacted on March 23, 2010, has re-defined the structured settlement and personal injury settlement consulting marketplace: whether current participants realize it - or (more probably) do not.

Among the strategic consequences of health care reform:

• An estimated 16 million more Medicaid participants - and therefore:
• More special needs trusts;
• More special needs attorneys;
• More structured settlement annuities payable to trustees.

Without focusing specifically on health care reform (not then enacted), the ASNP 2010 Annual Meeting included valuable presentations and handout resources indirectly related to health care reform, structured settlements and settlement planning/consulting.

Among those valuable presentations was Evan J. Krame's analysis titled "Not Very Special Trusts: Fixing Trusts to be Special and Using Pooled Trusts". As part of his ASNP trust analysis, Krame introduced a document he wrote titled "25 Questions to Evaluate Pooled Trusts".

In addition to his legal practice and teaching activities, Krame serves as President of Shared Horizons, Inc. Shared Horizons is trustee of the Wesley Vinner Memorial Trust (a pooled trust) serving people with disabilities in the District of Columbia and Maryland.

Krame has granted permission for S2KM to re-publish his list of 25 Questions here in S2KM blog format.

Trust Structures

• Check the Trust Agreement and Joinder Agreement? What do the documents say? For example, what powers does the trustee have?
• Is the trust approved and monitored by any state agencies?
• Who/what is really serving as the trustee? Is it the non-profit organization that created the trust or is it a third party hired to administer the trust?

Is this Trust Right for You?

• What are the costs of participation? Is there an initiation fee, an annual fee or a termination fee?
• How are the disbursements approved? What is the ease and method of disbursements? Who signs disbursement checks?
• What is the availability of advocacy on behalf of the beneficiary?
• How do they manage public benefit issues?
• How do they monitor the beneficiaries?
• Will the trust own illiquid or uncommon assets such as cars or homes?

Trust Management

• What is the reputation of the non-profit and/or trust management organizations?
• What is the organizational structure? Check on staff, space and activities.
• Who are the officers of the non-profit? What are their skills and background?
• What is the function of the board of the non-profit trustee?
• How long has the trust been in existence? Is there any reason to believe it could fail? How appropriately is the pooled trust compensated?
• How are the trust assets invested? Is there an investment policy in force that is followed? Is there an independent investment adviser? Is there an investment review committee? Is there an allocation model?
• How do they maintain separate shares? Do they uphold the duty to segregate?
• Is there liability and casualty insurance in place?
• How do they meet their duty to inform? Are statements provided to beneficiaries and state agencies (as required)?
• How do they meet their duty to account?
• How do they maintain their records? Are they precise, complete and accurate?
• How do they meet their duty of confidentiality?
• Do they have and/or employ legal counsel?
• Are there termination procedures in place?
• What is the policy as to funds at the death of a beneficiary?
• How do they handle income tax reporting?

Additional S2KM resources about settlement trusts:

• Settlement trusts re-visited
• Settlement trusts
• Single claimant 468B funds
• Selecting a settlement trustee
• Settlement trust due diligence
• Special Needs Trusts X
• Richard Halpern

S2P2J Release 47

Release 47 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), co-authored by Daniel Hindert, Joseph Dehner and Patrick Hindert, and published by Incisive Media, features extended discussions about structured settlement public policy and structured settlement business models, standards and practices.

Public policy issues addressed in Release 47:

• Does structured settlement public policy support:
  • Single claimant IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds?
  • Court-approved structured settlement factoring transactions pursuant to IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection statutes?
• Do personal injury victims have a greater propensity to dissipate their financial resources than non-personal injury victims?
• Should the existence of the secondary market disqualify annuities as a funding option for special needs trusts?
• Does the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 apply to structured settlement annuities?
• Why should structured settlement annuities cost less than lump sum alternatives to fund Medicare set-aside arrangements (MSAs)?

Business standards and practice issues addressed in Release 47:

• Traditional structured settlement business models;
• Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit;
• Fresno County factoring cases;
• The J.G. Wentworth bankruptcy and related credit crunch;
• New "best interest" test in California's revised protection statute;
• SSP's Standards of Professional Conduct.

S2P2J Release 47 also tightens S2P2J's existing analysis (Chapter 15) about the interaction of structured settlement annuities with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and updates industry developments generally.

S2P2J Release 48 will analyze how health care reform impacts structured settlements and also will feature a new chapter about IRC section 468B qualified settlement funds.

For prior S2KM analysis of related issues see S2KM's:

• structured settlement wiki; and
• structured settlement public policy wiki;
• web 2.0 for lawyers wiki;
• as well as prior S2KM blog posts.