insurance assignment rights

Received a document?

We’re the mechanics lien experts. It’s fast, easy, affordable, and done right.

Assignment of Benefits for Contractors: Pros & Cons of Accepting an AOB

22 articles

Insurance , Restoration , Slow Payment

An illustrated assignment of benefits form in front of a damaged house

When a property owner files an insurance claim to cover a restoration or roofing project, the owner typically deals directly with the insurance company. They may not have the funds available to pay the contractor out of pocket, so they’re counting on that insurance check to cover the construction costs.

But insurance companies often drag their feet, and payments can take even longer than normal. Contractors often wish they could simply deal with the insurance company directly through an assignment of benefits. In some circumstances, an AOB can be an effective tool that helps contractors collect payment faster — but is it worth it?

In this article, we’ll explain what an assignment of benefits is, and how the process works. More importantly, we’ll look at the pros and cons for restoration and roofing contractors to help you decide if an AOB is worth it .

What is an assignment of benefits?

An assignment of benefits , or AOB, is an agreement to transfer insurance claim rights to a third party. It gives the assignee authority to file and negotiate a claim directly with the insurance company, without involvement from the property owner.

An AOB also allows the insurer to pay the contractor directly instead of funneling funds through the customer. AOBs take the homeowner out of the claims equation.

Here’s an example: A property owner’s roof is damaged in a hurricane. The owner contacts a restoration company to repair the damage, and signs an AOB to transfer their insurance rights to the contractor. The contractor, now the assignee, negotiates the claim directly with the insurance company. The insurer will pay the claim by issuing a check for the repairs directly to the restoration contractor.

Setting up an AOB

A property owner and contractor can set up an assignment of benefits in two steps:

The owner and the contractor sign an AOB agreement
The contractor sends the AOB to the insurance company

Keep in mind that many states have their own laws about what the agreement can or should include .

For example, Florida’s assignment of benefits law contains relatively strict requirements when it comes to an assignment of benefits:

The AOB agreements need to be in writing. The agreement must contain a bolded disclosure notifying the customer that they are relinquishing certain rights under the homeowners policy. You can’t charge administrative fees or penalties if a homeowner decides to cancel the AOB.
The AOB must include an itemized, per-unit breakdown of the work you plan to do. The services can only involve how you plan to make repairs or restore the home’s damage or protect the property from any further harm. A copy must be provided to the insurance company.
A homeowner can rescind an AOB agreement within 14 days of signing, or within 30 days if no work has begun and no start date was listed for the work. If a start date is listed, the 30-day rule still applies if substantial progress has not been made on the job.

Before signing an AOB agreement, make sure you understand the property owner’s insurance policy, and whether the project is likely to be covered.

Learn more: Navigating an insurance claim on a restoration project

Pros & cons for contractors

It’s smart to do a cost-benefit analysis on the practice of accepting AOBs. Listing pros and cons can help you make a logical assessment before deciding either way.

Pro: Hiring a public adjuster

An insurance carrier’s claims adjuster will inspect property damage and arrive at a dollar figure calculated to cover the cost of repairs. Often, you might feel this adjuster may have overlooked some details that should factor into the estimate.

If you encounter pushback from the insurer under these circumstances, a licensed, public adjuster may be warranted. These appraisers work for the homeowner, whose best interests you now represent as a result of the AOB. A public adjuster could help win the battle to complete the repairs properly.

Pro: More control over payment

You may sink a considerable amount of time into preparing an estimate for a customer. You may even get green-lighted to order materials and get started. Once the ball starts rolling, you wouldn’t want a customer to back out on the deal.

Klark Brown , Co-founder of The Alliance of Independent Restorers, concedes this might be one of the very situations in which an AOB construction agreement might help a contractor. “An AOB helps make sure the homeowner doesn’t take the insurance money and run,” says Brown.

Pro: Build a better relationship with the homeowner

A homeowner suffers a substantial loss and it’s easy to understand why push and pull with an insurance company might be the last thing they want to undertake. They may desire to have another party act on their behalf.

As an AOB recipient, the claims ball is now in your court. By taking some of the weight off a customer’s shoulders during a difficult period, it could help build good faith and further the relationship you strive to build with that client.

Learn more : 8 Ways for Contractors to Build Trust With a Homeowner

Con: It confuses payment responsibilities

Even if you accept an AOB, the property owner still generally bears responsibility for making payment. If the insurance company is dragging their feet, a restoration contractor can still likely file a mechanics lien on the property .

A homeowner may think that by signing away their right to an insurance claim, they are also signing away their responsibility to pay for the restoration work. This typically isn’t true, and this expectation could set you up for a more contentious dispute down the line if there is a problem with the insurance claim.

Con: Tighter margins

Insurance companies will want repairs made at the lowest cost possible. Just like you, carriers run a business and need to cut costs while boosting revenue.

While some restoration contractors work directly with insurers and could get a steady stream of work from them, Brown emphasizes that you may be sacrificing your own margins. “Expect to accept work for less money than you’d charge independently,” he adds.

The takeaway here suggests that any contractor accepting an AOB could subject themselves to the same bare-boned profit margins.

Con: More administrative work

Among others, creating additional administrative busywork is another reason Brown recommends that you steer clear of accepting AOBs. You’re committing additional resources while agreeing to work for less money.

“Administrative costs are a burden,” Brown states. Insurers may reduce and/or delay payments to help their own bottom lines. “Insurers will play the float with reserves and claims funds,” he added. So, AOBs can be detrimental to your business if you’re spending more while chasing payments.

Con: Increase in average collection period

Every contractor should use some financial metrics to help gauge the health of the business . The average collection period for receivables measures the average time it takes you to get paid on your open accounts.

Insurance companies aren’t known for paying claims quickly. If you do restoration work without accepting an AOB, you can often take action with the homeowner to get paid faster. When you’re depending on an insurance company to make your payment, rather than the owner, collection times will likely increase.

The literal and figurative bottom line is: If accepting assignment of benefits agreements increases the time it takes to get paid and costs you more in operational expense, these are both situations you want to avoid.

Learn more: How to calculate your collection effectiveness

AOBs and mechanics liens

A mechanics lien is hands down a contractor’s most effective tool to ensure they get paid for their work. Many types of restoration services are protected under lien laws in most states. But what happens to lien rights when a contractor accepts an assignment of benefits?

An AOB generally won’t affect a contractor’s ability to file a mechanics lien on the property if they don’t receive payment. The homeowner is typically still responsible to pay for the improvements. This is especially true if the contract involves work that wasn’t covered by the insurance policy.

However, make sure you know the laws in the state where your project is located. For example, Florida’s assignment of benefits law, perhaps the most restrictive in the country, appears to prohibit an AOB assignee from filing a lien.

Florida AOB agreements are required to include language that waives the contractor’s rights to collect payment from the owner. The required statement takes it even further, stating that neither the contractor or any of their subs can file a mechanics lien on the owner’s property.

On his website , Florida’s CFO says: “The third-party assignee and its subcontractors may not collect, or attempt to collect money from you, maintain any action of law against you, file a lien against your property or report you to a credit reporting agency.”

That sounds like a contractor assignee can’t file a lien if they aren’t paid . But, according to construction lawyer Alex Benarroche , it’s not so cut-and-dry.

“Florida’s AOB law has yet to be tested in court, and it’s possible that the no-lien provision would be invalid,” says Benarroche. “This is because Florida also prohibits no-lien clauses in a contract. It is not legal for a contractor to waive their right to file a lien via an agreement prior to performance.”

Learn more about no-lien clauses and their enforceability state-by-state

Remember that every state treats AOBs differently, and conflicting laws can create additional risk. It’s important to consult with a construction lawyer in the project’s state before accepting an assignment of benefits.

Best practices for contractors

At the end of the day, there are advantages and disadvantages to accepting an assignment of benefits. While it’s possible in some circumstances that an AOB could help a contractor get paid faster, there are lots of other payment tools that are more effective and require less administrative costs. An AOB should never be the first option on the table .

If you do decide to become an assignee to the property owner’s claim benefits, make sure you do your homework beforehand and adopt some best practices to effectively manage the assignment of benefits process. You’ll need to keep on top of the administrative details involved in drafting AOBs and schedule work in a timely manner to stay in compliance with the conditions of the agreement.

Make sure you understand all the nuances of how insurance works when there’s a claim . You need to understand the owner’s policy and what it covers. Home insurance policy forms are basically standardized for easy comparisons in each state, so what you see with one company is what you get with all carriers.

Since you’re now the point of contact for the insurance company, expect more phone calls and emails from both clients and the insurer . You’ll need to have a strategy to efficiently handle ramped-up communications since the frequency will increase. Keep homeowners and claims reps in the loop so you can build customer relationships and hopefully get paid faster by the insurer for your work.

Ask an expert for free

I am doing some part-time administrative work for a friend who has an owner/operator pressure washing business located in NC in its first year of business. Recently, my friend has expressed interest in expanding his operations to FL so that he can eventually live and work between both...

I am a homeowner, 4 days prior to Ida, we had solar panels installed. Half were damaged and blown off of course, so after we allowed the solar panel co to do our roof and redo our panel system. After a year, they finally replaced our roof and...

I believe a person was impersonating as a licensed general contractor. When I verified the license in GA, the license belonged to a completely different individual. When I called the provided insurance carrier of the general contractor, the insurance company said the company did not have an active...

Thomas Tracy

View Profile

About the author

Recommended for you

What are “back charges” in construction.

Back charges can be tricky if you're not careful! It's incredibly important to prioritize communication and documentation when back charges...

What Is a Work in Progress Schedule? | Construction Accounting

The Work In Progress (WIP) schedule is an accounting schedule that's a component of a company's balance sheet. It's calculated...

Construction Contracts: What Does “Workmanlike Manner” Mean?

Just about every construction contract will require that work be done in a "workmanlike manner." But what exactly does that...

What Is a Notice of Completion?

What is a Notice of Completion? As anyone reading this surely knows, the construction industry loves its documents! There's a...

Construction Contracts: Pros and Cons of a Cost-Plus Contract

What is a cost-plus contract and how is it used in the construction industry? This type of contract is also...

What Does ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Mean?

In the construction business, everything comes down to the contract. And that's unfortunate because most of the people who make...

The Ultimate Guide to Lien Waivers in Construction

What are lien waivers in construction? This article is the ultimate guide for construction lien waivers including essential information and...

What Is a Notice of Commencement? Your Guide with Form Downloads

Typically, the filing of a notice of commencement by the property owner or other top-of-chain party affects preliminary notice and...

Assignment of Benefits: What It Is, and How It Can Affect your Property Insurance Claim

Table of Contents

What is an Assignment of Benefits?

In the context of insured property claims, an assignment of benefits (AOB) is an agreement between you and a contractor in which you give the contractor your right to insurance payments for a specific scope of work . In exchange, the contractor agrees that it will not seek payment from you for that scope of work, except for the amount of any applicable deductible. In other words, you give part of your insurance claim to your contractor, and your contractor agrees not to collect from you for part of its work.

The most important thing to know about an assignment of benefits is that it puts your contractor in control your claim , at least for their scope of work. Losing that control can significantly affect the direction and outcome of your claim, so you should fully understand the implications of an AOB (sometimes called an assignment of claims or AOC) before signing one.

How Does an Assignment of Benefits Work in Practice?

Let’s say you’re an insured homeowner, and Hurricane Ian significantly damaged your roof. Let’s also assume your homeowner’s policy covers that damage. A roofer, after inspecting your roof and reviewing your insurance policy, might conclude that your insurer is probably going to pay for a roof replacement under your insurance policy. The only problem is that it’s early in the recovery process, and your insurer hasn’t yet stated whether it will pay for the roof replacement proposed by your contractor. So if you want your roof replaced now, you would ordinarily agree to pay your roofer for the replacement, and wait in hopes that your insurer reimburses you for the work. This means that if your insurance company refuses to pay or drags out payment, you’re on the hook to your roofer for the cost of the replacement.

As an alternative to agreeing to pay your roofer for the full cost of the work, you could sign an assignment of benefits for the roof replacement. In this scenario, your roofer owns the part of your insurance claim that pertains to the roof replacement. You might have to pay your roofer for the amount of your deductible, but you probably don’t have to pay them for the rest of the cost of the work. And if your insurance company refuses to pay or drags out payment for the roof replacement, it’s your roofer, and not you, who would be on the hook for that shortfall.

So should you sign an AOB? Not necessarily. Read below to understand the pros and cons of an assignment of benefits.

Are There any Downsides to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Yes.

You lose control of your claim . This is the most important factor to understand when considering whether to sign an AOB. An AOB is a formal assignment of your legal rights to payment under your insurance contract. Unless you’re able to cancel the AOB, your contractor will have full control over your claim as it relates to their work.

To explain why that control could matter, let’s go back to the roof replacement example. When you signed the AOB, the scope of work you agreed on was to replace the roof. But you’re not a roofing expert, so you don’t know whether the costs charged or the materials used by the roofer in its statement of work are industry appropriate or not. In most cases, they probably are appropriate, and there’s no problem. But if they’re not – if, for instance, the roofer’s prices are unreasonably high – then the insurer may not approve coverage for the replacement. At that point, the roofer could lower its prices so the insurer approves the work, but it doesn’t have to, because it controls the claim . Instead it could hold up work and threaten to sue your insurer unless it approves the work at the originally proposed price. Now the entire project is insnared in litigation, leaving you in a tough spot with your insurer for your other claims and, most importantly, with an old leaky roof.

Misunderstanding the Scope of Work. Another issue that can arise is that you don’t understand the scope of the assignment of benefits. Contractor estimates and scopes of work are often highly technical documents that can be long on detail but short on clarity. Contractors are experts at reading and writing them. You are not. That difference matters because the extent of your assignment of benefits is based on that technical, difficult-to-understand scope of work. This can lead to situations where your understanding of what you’re authorizing the contractor to do is very different from what you’ve actually authorized in the AOB agreement.

In many cases, it’s not necessary . Many contractors will work with you and your insurer to provide a detailed estimate of their work, and will not begin that work until your insurer has approved coverage for it. This arrangement significantly reduces the risk of you being on the hook for uninsured repairs, without creating any of the potential problems that can occur when you give away your rights to your claim.

Do I have to sign an Assignment of Benefits?

No. You are absolutely not required to sign an AOB if you do not want to.

Are There any Benefits to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Potentially, but only if you’ve fully vetted your contractor and your claim involves complicated and technical construction issues that you don’t want to deal with.

First, you must do your homework to fully vet your contractor! Do not just take their word for it or be duped by slick ads. Read reviews, understand their certificate of insurance, know where they’re located, and, if possible, ask for and talk to references. If you’ve determined that the contractor is highly competent at the work they do, is fully insured, and has a good reputation with customers, then that reduces the risk that they’ll abuse their rights to your claim.

Second, if your claim involves complicated reconstruction issues, a reputable contractor may be well equipped to handle the claim and move it forward. If you don’t want to deal with the hassle of handling a complicated claim like this, and you know you have a good contractor, one way to get rid of that hassle is an AOB.

Another way to get rid of the hassle is to try Claimly, the all-in-one claims handling tool that get you results but keeps you in control of your claim.

Can my insurance policy restrict the use of AOBs?

Yes, it’s possible that your Florida insurance policy restricts the use of AOBs, but only if all of the following criteria are met:

When you selected your coverage, your insurer offered you a different policy with the same coverage, only it did not restrict the right to sign an AOB.
Your insurer made the restricted policy available at a lower cost than the unrestricted policy.
If the policy completely prohibits AOBs, then it was made available at a lower cost than any policy partially prohibiting AOBs.
The policy includes on its face the following notice in 18-point uppercase and boldfaced type:

THIS POLICY DOES NOT ALLOW THE UNRESTRICTED ASSIGNMENT OF POST-LOSS INSURANCE BENEFITS. BY SELECTING THIS POLICY, YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO FREELY ASSIGN OR TRANSFER THE POST-LOSS PROPERTY INSURANCE BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER THIS POLICY TO A THIRD PARTY OR TO OTHERWISE FREELY ENTER INTO AN ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 627.7153 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

627.7153.

Pro Tip : If you have an electronic copy of your complete insurance policy (not just the declaration page), then search for “policy does not allow the unrestricted assignment” or another phrase from the required language above to see if your policy restricts an AOB. If your policy doesn’t contain this required language, it probably doesn’t restrict AOBs.

Do I have any rights or protections concerning Assignments of Benefits?

Yes, you do. Florida recently enacted laws that protect consumers when dealing with an AOB.

Protections in the AOB Contract

To be enforceable, a Assignments of Benefits must meet all of the following requirements:

Be in writing and executed by and between you and the contractor.
Contain a provision that allows you to cancel the assignment agreement without a penalty or fee by submitting a written notice of cancellation signed by the you to the assignee:
at least 30 days after the date work on the property is scheduled to commence if the assignee has not substantially performed, or
at least 30 days after the execution of the agreement if the agreement does not contain a commencement date and the assignee has not begun substantial work on the property.
Contain a provision requiring the assignee to provide a copy of the executed assignment agreement to the insurer within 3 business days after the date on which the assignment agreement is executed or the date on which work begins, whichever is earlier.
Contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee .
Relate only to work to be performed by the assignee for services to protect, repair, restore, or replace a dwelling or structure or to mitigate against further damage to such property.
Contain the following notice in 18-point uppercase and boldfaced type:

YOU ARE AGREEING TO GIVE UP CERTAIN RIGHTS YOU HAVE UNDER YOUR INSURANCE POLICY TO A THIRD PARTY, WHICH MAY RESULT IN LITIGATION AGAINST YOUR INSURER. PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING IT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PENALTY WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THIS AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED, AT LEAST 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE WORK ON THE PROPERTY IS SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE IF THE ASSIGNEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORMED, OR AT LEAST 30 DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT IF THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN A COMMENCEMENT DATE AND THE ASSIGNEE HAS NOT BEGUN SUBSTANTIAL WORK ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, YOU ARE OBLIGATED FOR PAYMENT OF ANY CONTRACTED WORK PERFORMED BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS RESCINDED. THIS AGREEMENT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THE DUTIES REQUIRED UNDER YOUR PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY.

Contain a provision requiring the assignee to indemnify and hold harmless the assignor from all liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney fees.

Contractor Duties

Under Florida law, a contractor (or anyone else) receiving rights to a claim under an AOB:

Must provide you with accurate and up-to-date revised estimates of the scope of work to be performed as supplemental or additional repairs are required.
Must perform the work in accordance with accepted industry standards.
May not seek payment from you exceeding the applicable deductible under the policy unless asked the contractor to perform additional work at the your own expense.
Must, as a condition precedent to filing suit under the policy, and, if required by the insurer, submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements conducted by the insurer or the insurer’s representative that are reasonably necessary, based on the scope of the work and the complexity of the claim, which examinations and recorded statements must be limited to matters related to the services provided, the cost of the services, and the assignment agreement.
Must, as a condition precedent to filing suit under the policy, and, if required by the insurer, participate in appraisal or other alternative dispute resolution methods in accordance with the terms of the policy.
If the contractor is making emergency repairs, the assignment of benefits cannot exceed the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit.

What Is An Assignee On A Life Insurance Policy?

Published: October 14, 2023

Learn the role of an assignee on a life insurance policy and how it can impact your finances. Discover what it takes to become a finance-savvy assignee.

(Many of the links in this article redirect to a specific reviewed product. Your purchase of these products through affiliate links helps to generate commission for LiveWell, at no extra cost. Learn more )

Introduction, definition of assignee, role of assignee in a life insurance policy, rights and responsibilities of an assignee, process of assigning a life insurance policy, benefits of assigning a life insurance policy, considerations before assigning a life insurance policy, potential challenges and risks for assignees.

Life insurance is a crucial financial tool that provides protection and financial security to individuals and their loved ones in case of unexpected events. While the primary purpose of life insurance is to provide a death benefit to beneficiaries, policy owners also have the flexibility to assign or transfer their policy rights to another person or entity. This is where an assignee comes into play.

An assignee on a life insurance policy refers to the individual or entity who is designated to receive the policy benefits or be the recipient of any policy changes. Assigning a life insurance policy can be a strategic move for policyholders who want to transfer ownership rights or allocate the proceeds to a specific person or organization.

In this article, we will delve deeper into the role of an assignee in a life insurance policy, their rights and responsibilities, as well as the process of assigning a policy. We will also explore the benefits and considerations involved in assigning a life insurance policy, along with potential challenges and risks that assignees may encounter.

Understanding the concept of assignees in life insurance policies is essential for policyholders who may be considering transferring their policy rights or for beneficiaries who need to comprehend the implications of an assigned policy. Without further ado, let’s dive into the details of assignees on a life insurance policy.

An assignee on a life insurance policy is an individual or entity that is designated to receive the policy benefits or take over the ownership rights and responsibilities. When a policyholder assigns their life insurance policy, they transfer their rights to the assignee, who then becomes the new owner of the policy.

The assignee can be a spouse, child, relative, friend, or even a business entity such as a trust or corporation. The assignee can be named at the time the policy is initially taken out, or the policyholder can choose to assign the policy at a later date. In some cases, a policyholder may assign their policy to a lender or creditor as collateral for a loan.

It is important to note that the assignee is distinct from the beneficiary. The beneficiary is the person or entity who receives the death benefit proceeds upon the death of the insured. While the assignee assumes ownership of the policy, they may or may not be the same person as the beneficiary.

Assigning a life insurance policy can be a way for policyholders to ensure that the intended recipient receives the policy benefits or to transfer the financial responsibility and management of the policy to someone else.

Now that we have established the definition of an assignee in a life insurance policy, let’s explore their role in more detail.

The assignee plays a significant role in a life insurance policy once they have been designated as the new owner. Their responsibilities and authority may vary depending on the terms of the policy and the specific agreement between the policyholder and the assignee. Here are some key roles an assignee may have:

Policy Ownership: As the assignee, they become the legal owner of the life insurance policy. This means they have the rights to manage and make decisions regarding the policy, subject to any limitations or conditions outlined in the assignment agreement.
Premium Payments: The assignee is generally responsible for paying the premiums to keep the policy in force. They may choose to use their own funds or utilize the policy’s cash value, if available, to cover the premiums.
Beneficiary Designation: The assignee may have the authority to change the beneficiary designation if permitted by the policy terms. This gives them the ability to redirect the policy’s death benefit to another individual or entity.
Policy Modifications: Depending on the specific agreement, the assignee may have the power to make changes to the policy, such as increasing or decreasing the coverage amount, adjusting the policy term, or adding additional riders.
Access to Policy Information: As the new policy owner, the assignee has the right to access and review the policy information, including the policy terms, conditions, and any associated documents.
Claims Processing: In the event of the insured’s death, the assignee is responsible for initiating the claims process and ensuring that the death benefit proceeds are disbursed to the designated beneficiary.

It’s important to note that the specific roles and authority of the assignee can vary based on the terms of the assignment agreement. It is essential for both the policyholder and the assignee to have a clear understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities to avoid any confusion or disputes in the future.

Now that we have examined the role of an assignee in a life insurance policy, let’s explore the rights and responsibilities they have in more detail.

When an individual or entity becomes the assignee of a life insurance policy, they acquire certain rights and responsibilities associated with the policy. These rights and responsibilities can vary depending on the terms of the assignment agreement and the specific provisions of the policy. Let’s take a closer look at the rights and responsibilities of an assignee:

Rights of an Assignee:

Ownership Rights: As the assignee, they have the right to the policy benefits and any cash value that has accumulated. They can make decisions regarding the policy, such as changing the beneficiary, modifying coverage, or accessing policy information.
Premium Payments: The assignee has the right to receive premium payments from the policyholder, which they can use to keep the policy in force. They may also have the right to access the policy’s cash value, if available.
Policy Modifications: Depending on the terms of the assignment agreement, the assignee may have the right to make changes to the policy, such as adjusting the coverage amount, policy term, or adding additional riders.
Access to Policy Information: The assignee has the right to access and review the policy information, including the terms, conditions, and any associated documents. This allows them to stay informed about the policy’s provisions and make informed decisions.
Claims Processing: In the event of the insured’s death, the assignee has the right to initiate the claims process and receive the death benefit proceeds. They are responsible for disbursing the proceeds to the designated beneficiary, if applicable.

Responsibilities of an Assignee:

Premium Payments: As the assignee, they are responsible for making premium payments to keep the policy in force. This ensures that the policy remains active and the coverage continues.
Policy Management: The assignee has the responsibility to manage and maintain the policy. This includes reviewing the policy regularly, staying informed about any changes in the terms and conditions, and making decisions that align with the policyholder’s intentions.
Beneficiary Designation: If authorized by the assignment agreement, the assignee may have the responsibility to change the beneficiary designation if necessary. This involves ensuring that the intended recipient of the death benefit is correctly designated.
Communication: The assignee has the responsibility to maintain open communication with the policyholder, beneficiaries, and any other parties involved. This helps in addressing any questions, concerns, or changes that may arise regarding the policy.

It’s important for both the assignee and the policyholder to have a clear understanding of these rights and responsibilities to ensure a smooth and effective management of the policy. Now that we have explored the rights and responsibilities of an assignee, let’s move on to understand the process of assigning a life insurance policy.

The process of assigning a life insurance policy involves transferring the ownership rights and control of the policy from the policyholder to the assignee. While the specific steps may vary based on the insurance company and policy terms, the general process typically includes the following:

Review Policy Terms: The policyholder should carefully review the terms and conditions of their life insurance policy to understand any limitations or restrictions on assigning the policy.
Choose an Assignee: The policyholder selects an individual or entity to be the assignee. This can be a family member, friend, trust, or even a business entity. It is essential to consider the long-term goals and intentions when choosing an assignee.
Obtain Consent: The policyholder must obtain the consent of the proposed assignee to ensure they are willing to assume the responsibilities and obligations associated with the policy.
Prepare Assignment Agreement: The policyholder and the assignee should work together to prepare an assignment agreement. This is a legal document that outlines the terms of the assignment, including the assignee’s rights, responsibilities, and any potential compensation or considerations involved.
Notify the Insurance Company: The policyholder must contact their insurance company to inform them of the intention to assign the policy. The insurance company may require specific forms to be filled out, along with a copy of the assignment agreement.
Insurance Company Approval: The insurance company will review the assignment request and the assignment agreement to ensure they comply with their policies and regulations. Once approved, they will update their records to reflect the new assignee.
Update Beneficiary Designation: If the assignee is different from the original beneficiary, the policyholder may need to update the beneficiary designation to ensure that the intended recipient receives the death benefit.

It is crucial for both the policyholder and the assignee to consult with legal and financial professionals to ensure that the assignment process is conducted properly, adhering to any legal requirements and optimizing the financial outcomes for all parties involved.

Now that we have discussed the process of assigning a life insurance policy, let’s move on to explore the benefits of assigning a life insurance policy.

Assigning a life insurance policy can offer several benefits for both the policyholder and the assignee. Here are some key advantages of assigning a life insurance policy:

Control and Flexibility: Assigning a life insurance policy allows the policyholder to have control over who will manage and benefit from the policy. It provides flexibility to designate a specific person or entity to take over the ownership rights and responsibilities.
Estate Planning: Assigning a life insurance policy can be an effective estate planning strategy. It allows the policyholder to transfer assets outside of their estate, which may help in minimizing estate taxes and ensuring a smooth transfer of wealth to the intended recipients.
Creditor Protection: By assigning a life insurance policy to a trust or business entity, the policy cash value and death benefit may be protected from potential creditors. This provides an added layer of financial security for the assignee and the intended beneficiaries.
Financial Assistance: Assigning a life insurance policy can be beneficial in scenarios where the assignee needs financial assistance. For example, if the assignee is facing financial hardship or requires funds for a specific purpose, they may be able to access the policy’s cash value or even borrow against the policy.
Charitable Giving: Assigning a life insurance policy to a charitable organization can be a meaningful way to support a favorite cause. It allows the policyholder to make a significant charitable contribution, and the assignee, in this case, would be responsible for managing the policy and ensuring that the proceeds benefit the designated charity.

It’s important to note that the benefits of assigning a life insurance policy can vary depending on the specific circumstances and goals of the policyholder. Therefore, it is advisable to consult with financial advisors, estate planning professionals, and insurance experts to assess the suitability of assigning a policy and to maximize the potential benefits.

Now that we have explored the benefits of assigning a life insurance policy, let’s move on to discuss some considerations before making the decision to assign a policy.

Before deciding to assign a life insurance policy, it is crucial to carefully consider a few key factors. These considerations will help ensure that the decision aligns with your financial goals and meets your specific needs. Here are some important points to ponder:

Impact on Beneficiaries: Assigning a life insurance policy may have implications for the intended beneficiaries. It is essential to consider their needs and financial security before assigning the policy to someone else or an entity. Make sure to have open conversations with the beneficiaries to discuss any changes in the policy ownership and how it may impact them.
Future Financial Needs: Assess your own future financial needs before assigning a life insurance policy. Life circumstances can change, and it is crucial to determine if the policy’s cash value or death benefit might be required for your own financial stability or long-term goals. Balancing immediate financial needs with the desire to assign the policy is important.
Trustworthiness of the Assignee: Consider the trustworthiness and reliability of the proposed assignee. Assigning a life insurance policy involves transferring ownership rights and responsibilities, so it is crucial to choose someone who will effectively manage the policy and fulfill the agreed-upon obligations. Conduct thorough due diligence and consider seeking legal advice to ensure the assignee is the right choice.
Tax Implications: Assigning a life insurance policy may have tax implications. Consult with tax professionals to understand any potential tax consequences of the assignment, such as gift tax or estate tax considerations. Proper planning and knowledge of tax laws will help mitigate any unexpected tax liabilities.
Insurance Company Policy: Review the terms and conditions of your life insurance policy regarding assignments. Some policies may have restrictions or limitations on assigning a policy, and it’s important to understand these provisions. Contact your insurance company directly to clarify any concerns or questions related to the assignment process.
Legal Considerations: Assigning a life insurance policy involves legal documentation and agreements. It is advisable to consult with legal professionals who specialize in insurance and estate planning to ensure that the assignment is conducted in compliance with applicable laws and meets your specific needs.

Considering these factors will help you make an informed decision about whether assigning a life insurance policy is the right choice for you. Assess your individual situation, speak with professionals, and review your long-term goals to determine if assigning the policy aligns with your overall financial plan.

Now that we have explored the considerations before assigning a life insurance policy, let’s discuss some potential challenges and risks for assignees.

While assigning a life insurance policy can have its benefits, there are also potential challenges and risks that assignees should be aware of. Understanding these risks will help you make informed decisions and take necessary precautions. Here are some potential challenges and risks for assignees:

Financial Responsibility: As the assignee, you become responsible for paying the policy premiums to keep the coverage in force. Failure to pay the premiums can result in the policy lapsing, causing loss of coverage and potential loss of the policy’s cash value.
Potential Conflict: Assigning a life insurance policy may lead to conflicts, especially if the policyholder has multiple beneficiaries or if the assigned policy conflicts with other estate planning arrangements. It is important to communicate and coordinate with all involved parties to minimize potential disputes.
Changing Circumstances: Life circumstances can change, and the assigned policy may no longer align with the assignee’s needs or financial goals. Review the policy periodically to ensure it still meets your objectives. If necessary, consult with professionals to explore options for policy modifications or changes.
Loss of Control: By assigning a policy, you relinquish control over certain aspects of the policy. The assignee may need to consult the policyholder or beneficiaries before making any changes or important decisions. This loss of control should be carefully considered before proceeding with the assignment.
Insurance Company Approval: The insurance company typically has the final say in approving the assignment. They will review and confirm the assignment agreement to ensure compliance with their policies. If the assignment is not approved, it can impede the intended transfer of ownership.
Tax Implications: Assigning a life insurance policy may have tax consequences for the assignee, such as potential income tax on the policy’s cash value or estate tax implications. Consult with tax professionals before finalizing the assignment to fully understand these potential tax implications.

It is crucial for assignees to carefully weigh these challenges and risks against the potential benefits before accepting the assignment of a life insurance policy. Be proactive in communicating with the policyholder and beneficiaries, stay informed about policy details, and seek professional guidance to navigate any potential challenges or risks.

Now that we have discussed the potential challenges and risks for assignees, let’s wrap up our article.

Assigning a life insurance policy can be a strategic financial move that offers flexibility and control over the policy’s ownership and benefits. By designating an assignee, individuals can ensure that the policy proceeds are directed to the intended recipient or utilize the expertise of an entity to manage the policy. However, before proceeding with an assignment, it is important to carefully consider various factors.

Understanding the role, rights, and responsibilities of an assignee is vital to ensure a smooth transition and effective management of the policy. The assignee assumes ownership of the policy, enjoying benefits such as decision-making authority and control over premiums. They also have responsibilities, including making premium payments, managing the policy, and initiating claims if the insured passes away.

The process of assigning a life insurance policy involves reviewing policy terms, choosing an assignee, obtaining consent, preparing an assignment agreement, and notifying the insurance company. It is crucial to review the policy specifics and consult legal and financial professionals to ensure compliance with regulations and optimize financial outcomes.

Assigning a life insurance policy offers numerous benefits, such as control, estate planning opportunities, creditor protection, and financial assistance. However, there are considerations to keep in mind, including the impact on beneficiaries, future financial needs, and tax implications.

Assignees may face potential challenges, such as financial responsibility, conflicts of interest, changing circumstances, loss of control, and insurance company approval. These risks should be carefully assessed, and open communication with the policyholder and beneficiaries is essential to minimize disputes and ensure a smooth transition.

In conclusion, assigning a life insurance policy requires thoughtful deliberation and consultation with professionals. Assessing your financial goals, considering the needs of beneficiaries, and understanding the potential risks will help make an informed decision. Assigning a life insurance policy can provide peace of mind, but careful consideration and planning are essential to ensure the assigned policy aligns with your long-term financial goals.

Our Review on The Credit One Credit Card

20 Quick Tips To Saving Your Way To A Million Dollars

How Can You Find Out About A Credit Inquiry On Your Report

Statement Shock Definition

8 Ways to Generate Passive Income with Cryptocurrency

Written By:

Next-Level Learning: Examining the Advantages of Online Post-Master’s FNP Education

The Recipe for a Balanced Life: Mixing Online Learning With Health and Wellness

Money Matters: Master Your Financial Future

Accounting For Photographers: Important Tips

Please accept our Privacy Policy.

We uses cookies to improve your experience and to show you personalized ads. Please review our privacy policy by clicking here .

https://livewell.com/finance/what-is-an-assignee-on-a-life-insurance-policy/

Back to All Blogs

Back to Policyholder Protection

Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions

Charles P. Edwards

Insurance policies typically contain clauses prohibiting assignment of the policy, or policy rights, without the insurer's consent. Transactions involving the sale of a business or some or all of its assets often include provisions governing the transfer of insurance rights for losses or liabilities that predate the transfer. Parties rarely seek insurer consent for such transfer, largely because it would be impractical, if not impossible, to obtain.

Whether insurance rights transfer when a company or its assets are sold can be an important variable in measuring the value of the deal. This issue often turns on whether the court adjudicating coverage for a post-closing claim follows the majority rule and allows transfers without carrier consent or follows the minority rule that does not.

Why Is Transferability of Insurance Important?

Insurance is a valuable asset and knowing whether and how its value can be transferred to a successor can be essential to pricing the transaction and reserving for liabilities. This is particularly true under state successor liability laws holding that a successor entity may be liable to third parties for the torts or obligations of predecessor entities, even where the parties' agreement provides otherwise. Parties may not even know about a liability lurking in the background at the time of a transaction that may mature into litigation after closing.

Do Insurance Rights Transfer or Not?

The majority rule.

The majority of courts permit post-occurrence transfers without insurer consent on the theory that the right being transferred is a chose in action (a fully perfected right to recover a debt) and does not increase the risk to the insurer. [l] One court explained the rationale for this majority rule as follows:

"The primary reason for the prohibition of assignments prior to loss absent an insurer's consent is to protect the insurer against increased risks of loss resulting from an assignment of coverage to a new insured . . . However, the need to protect the insurer no longer exists after the insured sustains the loss because the liability of the insurer is essentially fixed." [2]

Some courts have noted that an assignment of insurance rights as part of a merger or stock sale never triggers anti-assignment policy provisions because, by definition, the surviving entity inherits all assets, liabilities, and benefits of the acquired entity – making formal assignments unnecessary. With mergers, the risk remains unchanged because there is only one surviving entity, and the original insured essentially still exists.

The Minority Rule

Some courts hold that where no claim has been made against the insured seller in an asset sale at the time of closing, and where its policies require insurer consent to transfer, the assignment of insurance rights is ineffective. In one case, for example, the Indiana Supreme Court drew a distinction between property policies and liability policies, and held that under a liability policy, "at a minimum the losses must have been reported to give rise to a chose in action." [3] The court held that incurred liabilities that had not yet been reported were not assignable.

What Law Governs?

As the divergence between the majority and minority rules reflects, the all-important question of whether insurance rights can be transferred as part of an asset transfer depends upon which state's law applies to interpretation of the policy. Is it the state where the event prompting the claim occurred, the state in which the policy was issued, or the state where the contract of sale was formed? The relative value assigned to an insurance asset in a merger or acquisition can be substantially impacted by whether the majority or minority rule applies.

States generally apply one of three approaches in deciding what law applies to the interpretation of a policy. Under the lex loci contractus rule, the policy is governed by the law of the state in which the policy was executed. Generally, this is the state where the policy was delivered to the insured.

Other states follow the approach outlined in the Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws, which looks to the state law having the "most significant contacts" with the policy, This test examines "(1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiation of the contract; (3) the place of performance; (4) the location of the subject matter of the contract; (5) the residence and place of business of the parties; and (6) the principal location of the insured risk." [4]

Still other states follow a "governmental interest" analysis. The court first determines whether there is a "material difference" between the laws of the relevant states. [5] If the court finds a material difference, it must determine which state has the greatest interest in having its law applied.

The issue of which choice-of-law rule applies to construe a policy becomes more complicated when the insured purchases a policy covering properties and liabilities in a number of jurisdictions. When a claim arises and the availability of coverage depends on which state's law applies, some courts apply the laws of multiple states to multiple coverage issues, depending on the circumstances and location of the particular claim or loss. Other courts apply the law of a single state, no matter the circumstances of the loss or the number of jurisdictions involved.

Because the majority and minority rules about transferability of insurance rights are so different, the issue of which state's law applies to policy interpretation can have far-reaching consequences and often determines whether anti-assignment language in a policy will be strictly enforced.

Hybrid Approaches

In the coverage litigation that followed, PCS Nitrogen argued that it acquired the predecessor's insurance rights based on the majority rule that "post-loss" transfers of insurance rights are valid and enforceable, notwithstanding an anti-assignment provision. The court cited dicta in a South Carolina Supreme Court decision noting the majority rule with approval: "[I]t is generally held that an assignment after a loss has already occurred does not require an insurer's consent." [7] Based on this authority, PCS Nitrogen's argument should have carried the day. The event ultimately giving rise to the liability (contamination of a site) had occurred before the 1986 transaction. Under the majority rule, the insurance rights applicable to that liability would be treated as a chose in action included in the bundle of assets acquired in the initial sale and in the transactions that followed.

Yet the court disagreed. Without departing from the rationale behind the majority rule (that a ripened liability is a chose in action transferable without carrier consent), it found that coverage for the loss had not arisen at the time of the transfer because the policy stated that the insured was not entitled to coverage until liability was "finally determined by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company." The court held that because no lawsuits alleging the original seller's liability related to the contaminated site were filed before the first asset sale, the insured loss "had not yet occurred, and thus, no vested claims [to the insurance] existed."

In short, while acknowledging the concept that a loss or liability is treated as a chose in action transferable without the carriers' consent, the court held that the loss (environmental contamination) did not become a transferable asset until lawsuits alleging damages from the contamination were initiated.

Nevertheless, most courts following the majority rule have held that the loss transferable without insurer consent is liability for the contamination, which may not be alleged in a lawsuit until years later. This rule makes sense. If a liability a carrier contracts to insure a liability that is transferred through a purchase and sale, there is nothing unfair about compelling the carrier to cover it – regardless of who owns the liability when litigation is filed. This rule also honors the language and intent of "occurrence" based liability insurance policies.

The risk the insurer underwrote is neither changed nor increased. Excusing the insurance company from covering a liability arising from the very risk it agreed to insure, solely because the liability was transferred, would give it an undeserved windfall. The rationale for the prohibition against assignment, which is to bar coverage for an assignment that forces the insurer to cover a risk it did not bargain for, is not present under these circumstances.

A business wishing to transfer insurance rights as part of a transaction must consider the impact these varying rules may have on whether the transfer will be upheld and of the specific policy terms that could lead to a different result altogether.

This article was originally published in the 2020 edition of Corporate Policyholder Magazine.

[1] See e.g., Couch on Insurance, §34:25 (3d ed. 2013).

[2] Conrad Bros. v. John Deere Ins. Co., 640 N.W.2d 231, 238 (Iowa 2001)

[3] Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp, 895 N.E.2d 1172, 1180 (Ind. 2008).

[4] Adolph Coors Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 960 A.2d 617, 620 (D.C. 2008).

[5] Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 906, 919-20 (Cal. 2001).

[6] PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 837 S.E.2d 662, 665 (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

[7] Narruhn v. Alea London Limited, 404 S.C. 337, 343-45 (2013).

RELATED TOPICS
Insurance Rights
Insurance Transfer

The Tricky Business of Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions

March 13, 2020 | Policyholder Protection, Policy, Insurance

Recent Presentations Demonstrate Importance of Choice of Law

March 29, 2016 | Insurance, Policyholder Protection

RELATED PRACTICE AREAS

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

Barnes & Thornburg Recognized for Client Service

The firm has been ranked in the Top 20 of BTI Consulting Group’s 2023 Client Service A-Team list

Constitutional Effect of Department of State v. Muñoz

10 Pitfalls of Using Private Sector Immigration Compliance Tools

Abandonment (and Amendment) Issues in the Eleventh Circuit

Global AI Regulation: Europe Takes Momentous Action to Manage AI

DOJ, HHS, and FTC Request Public Comment on Effects of Private Equity Transactions on Healthcare Providers

Indiana Extends Rule Against Perpetuities to 360 Years

Before sending mail to your intended recipient, you must first understand the implications of communicating with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and agree to the following terms.

Barnes & Thornburg LLP appreciates your visit to the firm’s web site. Our site is provided for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Should you choose to contact an attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP (via E-mail or other means of communication), do not disclose information you regard to be confidential until the attorney verifies that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to consider accepting representation. Unless otherwise agreed in advance, all unsolicited inquiries or information received by Barnes & Thornburg LLP will not be regarded as confidential.

What Is a Life Insurance Assignment?

Conditional Assignment

With a conditional assignment, although you transfer your life insurance policy’s ownership rights to another party, the assignment stipulates that if a certain specified event occurs, the assignment can be suspended or revoked in whole or in part. The event in question cannot be something that you can cause to happen. If you assigned your life insurance policy to a business partner, for example, with the explicit agreement that on the death of that business partner the assignment is revoked, that assignment is deemed conditional.

Absolute Assignment

When you make an absolute assignment, the rights, title and interest in the life insurance policy pass on to another party without the possibility of reversal. The assignment provides security to the assignee in that you can no longer make decisions regarding the policy that would jeopardize it, such as taking out a policy loan or withdrawing cash values.

Secured Loan

If you own a business, and you wish to take out a loan for your business, the lender may require you to purchase life insurance on your own life as security for the loan. Initially you make the request for the insurance. Once the policy is approved and issued, you make an assignment to the bank. The bank now controls the decisions and can make changes to the policy, including naming itself as beneficiary.

Collateral Loan

If you own a life insurance policy with cash values, you might wish to access those cash values to increase your income flow. Withdrawals from life insurance policy cash values can result in taxes due and might reduce your death benefit. An alternative is to assign the life insurance policy to a lender in exchange for a line of credit or regular loan payments. These loans are generally not taxable, and you can typically borrow up to a stated maximum percentage of the cash value. Since the policy is assigned to the bank, your failure to pay the premiums on the policy will cause the bank to call the loan, cancel the insurance policy and use the cash values as payment of the loan. If you maintain the policy in force until your death, the bank is generally the beneficiary of the tax-free policy proceeds up to and including the outstanding amount of the loan, with any remaining policy proceeds paid tax free to your named beneficiary.

AXA Life: Know Your Insurance

Philippe Lanctot started writing for business trade publications in 1990. He has contributed copy for the "Canadian Insurance Journal" and has been the co-author of text for life insurance company marketing guides. He holds a Bachelor of Science in mathematics from the University of Montreal with a minor in English.

What is the collateral assignment of a life insurance policy, what is the assignment of insurance benefits, absolute assignment of life insurance policies, is mortgage insurance better than life insurance to pay off a mortgage upon death, tapping the cash in life insurance, how does renewing a loan work, tax on withdrawal from life insurance, is life insurance taxed at payout, boat financing tips for consumers, how long can co-signers stay on a mortgage loan, cancelling whole life insurance, how much can i borrow against cash value.

Zacks Research is Reported On:

Zacks Investment Research

is an A+ Rated BBB

Accredited Business.

At the center of everything we do is a strong commitment to independent research and sharing its profitable discoveries with investors. This dedication to giving investors a trading advantage led to the creation of our proven Zacks Rank stock-rating system. Since 1986 it has nearly tripled the S&P 500 with an average gain of +26% per year. These returns cover a period from 1986-2011 and were examined and attested by Baker Tilly, an independent accounting firm.

Visit performance for information about the performance numbers displayed above.

NYSE and AMEX data is at least 20 minutes delayed. NASDAQ data is at least 15 minutes delayed.

Search Search Please fill out this field.
Building Your Business

What Is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

Anti-Assignment Clauses Explained

Definition and Example

How Anti-Assignment Clauses Work

State Laws and Anti-Assignment Clauses

Extreme Media / Getty Images

An anti-assignment clause is a provision in an insurance policy that bars the policyholder from transferring their rights under the policy to another party. The clause prohibits the insured from authorizing someone else to file claims, make changes, or take other actions under the policy.

Many small businesses purchase insurance policies that contain an anti-assignment clause, which may affect their ability to conduct certain routine business transactions. For instance, if your property is damaged and you hire a contractor to make repairs, the clause may bar you from allowing the contractor to collect loss payments directly from your insurer. In addition, some restrictions found in anti-assignment clauses may be overridden by state laws. Below, we’ll explore further what an anti-assignment clause is and how it works.

Definition and Example of an Anti-Assignment Clause

An anti-assignment clause is language found in an insurance policy that forbids the policyholder from assigning their rights and interests under the policy to someone else without the insurer’s consent. The clause is usually found in the policy conditions section.

Alternate name : Assignment clause, Non-assignment clause

An example of an anti-assignment clause is wording contained in the standard Insurance Services Office (ISO) business owners policy (BOP) . You can find it in the Common Policy Conditions (Section III) under the heading “Transfer of Your Rights and Duties Under This Policy.” The clause states that your rights and duties under the policy may not be transferred without the insurer’s written consent. However, if you are an individual named on the policy and you die, your rights will be transferred to your legal representative.

An anti-assignment clause may not include the word “assignment” but instead refer to a transfer of rights under the policy.

Anti-assignment clauses prevent policyholders from transferring their rights under the policy to someone else without the insurer’s permission. The clauses are designed to protect insurers from unknown risks. Insurers evaluate insurance applicants carefully before they agree to provide coverage. They consider an applicant’s business experience, loss history, and other factors to gauge their susceptibility to claims. When an insurer issues a policy, the premium reflects the insurer’s assessment of the applicant’s risks. If the policyholder transfers their rights under the policy to another party, the insurer’s risk increases. This is because the insurer hasn’t had an opportunity to evaluate the new party’s risks.

The following example demonstrates how an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy can affect a business.

Theresa is the owner of Tasty Tidbits, a pastry shop she operates out of a commercial building she owns. She has insured her business for liability and property under a business owners policy. Theresa decides to take a one-year sabbatical from her business and asks her friend Ted to manage Tasty Treats during her absence. Theresa signs a contract assigning her rights under Tasty Tidbits’ BOP to Ted.

If a loss occurs, Ted may have no right to file a claim or collect benefits under the policy on Tasty Treats’ behalf. The assignment is barred by the anti-assignment clause in the BOP.

Effect of State Laws on Anti-Assignment Clauses

Many states have enacted laws via a statute or court ruling that override anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies. These laws may invalidate all or a portion of a policy’s anti-assignment provision. While the laws vary, many bar pre-loss assignments but permit assignments made after a loss has occurred. Assignments made before any losses have occurred are prohibited because they increase the insurer’s risks. Post-loss assignments don’t increase the insurer’s risks, so they generally are permitted.

Some states prohibit any assignment of benefits made without the insurer’s consent, whether the assignment occurred before or after a loss.

Here's an example of how a state law can impact an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy. Suppose that Theresa (in the previous scenario) has returned from her sabbatical and is again operating her business. Tasty Treats is located in a state that bars pre-loss assignments but allows assignments made after a loss has occurred.

Late one night, a fire breaks out in the pastry shop and a portion of the building is damaged. Theresa files a property damage claim under her BOP and hires Rapid Reconstruction, a construction company, to repair the building. At the contractor’s suggestion, Theresa assigns her rights to receive benefits for the claim under the BOP to Rapid Reconstruction. Because Theresa has assigned her rights after a loss has occurred, the assignment is permitted by law and should be accepted by Theresa’s insurer.

Key Takeaways

Many policies purchased by small businesses contain an anti-assignment clause.
An anti-assignment clause bars the policyholder from assigning their rights and interests under the policy to someone else without the insurer’s consent.
Many states have a statute or court ruling that overrides anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies.
State laws vary, but many prohibit pre-loss assignments yet permit assignments made after a loss has occurred.

Canopy Claims. " Business Owners Coverage Form ," Page 53.

Penn State Law Review. " If You Give a Shop a Claim: The Unsustainable Inequity of Pennsylvania’s Unbridled Post-Loss Assignments ."

Stahl, Davies, Sewell, Chavarria & Friend. " Buyers and Sellers Beware - Assignment of Hurricane Claims May Be Invalid in Texas ."

Simply Speaking (May 2020) — Insurance Assignments

May 28, 2020

Simply Speaking (May 2020)

Insurance Assignments

As security for the Obligations, the Assignor hereby grants, sells, transfers, assigns and sets over unto the Assignee, for the benefit of the Lender, a continuing, first priority security interest in and to all of the Assignor’s right, title and interest in, to and under the following property, whether now owned or existing or hereafter from time to time acquired or coming into existence:

all insurances (including, without limitation, all certificates of entry in protection and indemnity and war risks associations or clubs) in respect of the vessel, whether heretofore, now or hereafter effected, and all renewals of or replacements for the same;
all claims, returns of premium and other moneys and claims for moneys due and to become due under or in respect of said insurances;
all other rights of the Assignor under or in respect of said insurances; and
any proceeds of any of the foregoing.

What is it and what does it do?

A standard ship finance loan agreement requires that the borrower maintain certain insurances with respect to the vessel and grant the lender (or security agent/trustee on behalf of the lender) a security interest in such insurances. Typically, this is accomplished through an insurance assignment executed by the borrower/owner that grants a security interest in the insurances to the lender, as assignee, and sets out specific undertakings and perfection requirements relating to the insurances.

Why is it there and how is it relevant to shipping?

An insurance assignment is required in ship finance transactions because it helps protect the lender’s interest if there is a casualty affecting the vessel. Maritime casualties are an inherent risk in shipping, and there is always the possibility that the vessel may cause damage or be damaged or lost. The vessel is the primary collateral for a loan, and the lender will insist that it is protected in the unlikely event that the vessel causes damage or is damaged or lost.

More practically, an insurance assignment specifies what insurances are being assigned and set out how the security interest is perfected. The insurance assignment also sets out what terms the loss payable clauses endorsed onto the insurance policies include. The loss payable clauses, discussed further below, specify in what circumstances a loss payable by an insurer under a policy may be paid to the borrower/owner and in what circumstances such loss must be paid to the lender.

Why is it important (or not so important) to the lender?

Unlike many other types of collateral, security interests in insurance policies are carved out of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code which governs perfection of security interests. Therefore, a so-called “UCC financing statement” does not perfect the lender’s security interest, and the lender must take other actions to protect its interests in respect of the assigned insurance policies.

The perfection of a lender’s security interest in insurances is governed by state law, and generally requires that, together with the execution of an insurance assignment, notice be provided to the insurers. Therefore, an insurance assignment will include a form notice of assignment that the borrower must execute and deliver to the insurers as part of the borrower’s obligations under the insurance assignment. As additional protection, the lender also commonly requires the insurance underwriters to execute a letter of undertaking in favor of the lender and that the lender be named as an additional insured or loss payee on the policy, as further discussed below.

How does it affect the borrower in practical terms?

The insurance assignment affects the borrower primarily by (a) restricting under what circumstances a loss payable by an insurer may be paid to the borrower/owner, and (b) by placing certain initial and ongoing obligations on the borrower/owner. Initially, among other requirements, the borrower must provide notice of the assignment to the insurers to perfect the lender’s security interest. The insurance assignment also contains (if they are not set out in the loan agreement itself) restrictions on amending the insurances and include certain ongoing lender notification requirements. The borrower must be careful not to technically default under a loan agreement by failing to comply with the ongoing insurance notification requirements and undertakings.

How is it negotiated?

Insurance assignments are a standard element of any ship finance transaction. However, specific insurance coverage requirements are frequently negotiated between the borrower and the lender. While lender insurance coverage requirements often reflect insurance coverage the borrower already maintains, in some cases the lender may require more insurance cover or different types of cover (such as protection against loss of hire) than the borrower deems necessary, and the coverage requirements are then negotiated.

Unlike loan agreements and some of the other security documents in a ship finance transaction, an insurance assignment also commonly includes obligations on third parties. Under a typical insurance assignment, the insurance underwriters must (a) execute letters of undertaking in favor of the assignee, and/or (b) endorse loss payable clauses onto their policies. The insurance underwriters are not party to the insurance assignment itself, but must agree to provide these letters of undertaking and endorse the loss payable clauses. As such, when negotiating an insurance assignment, it is typical for the letters of undertaking and the loss payable clauses to be negotiated and agreed with the insurance underwriters during the documentation stage. Many insurers have preferred form letters of undertaking and will not agree to a letter of undertaking that does not follow such insurer’s preferred form.

With respect to the loss payable clauses, the borrower and lender often negotiate the thresholds and circumstances under which a loss payable may be paid to the borrower/owner. The borrower typically seeks to increase the threshold under which the insurer is permitted to make a payment directly to the borrower/owner without the consent of the lender. Conversely, the lender seeks a lower threshold to help protect its interest in the collateral. The lender typically requires losses payable in connection with a major casualty to be paid directly to the lender or requires that the lender first consent to any such payment to the borrower/owner, but allows payment of certain amounts directly to the borrower/owner, for example to affect repairs in the case of a smaller casualty. The threshold varies based on the value of the vessel, the anticipated size of any potential casualties, the size of the facility and the value of the other collateral securing the loan, and the financial strength of the borrower.

Related Attorneys

Lawrence Rutkowski

(212) 574-1206 [email protected]

Michael S. Timpone

(212) 574-1342 [email protected]

Related Practices

Related publications, july 31, 2019, simply speaking (july 2019) — prohibition on llc division/series transactions, june 27, 2019, simply speaking (june 2019) — service of process agent, simply speaking (may 2019) — u.s. coastwise trade citizenship requirements, simply speaking (april 2019) — ucc financing statements, march 29, 2019, simply speaking (march 2019) — fatca, february 28, 2019, simply speaking (february 2019) — increased costs, january 31, 2019, simply speaking (january 2019) — bail-in provision, august 28, 2019, simply speaking (august 2019) — libor fallback language, november 21, 2019, simply speaking (november 2019) — conditional payment instructions, january 13, 2020, simply speaking (january 2020) — “cramdown” in u.s. bankruptcy, february 26, 2020, simply speaking (february 2020) — marshall islands economic substance regulations, december 12, 2019, simply speaking (december 2019) — recharacterization — sale-leaseback transactions, march 31, 2020, simply speaking (march 2020) — erisa.

MyNewMarkets.com
Claims Journal
Insurance Journal TV
Academy of Insurance
Carrier Management

Current Magazine

Read Online

Post-Loss Assignments of Claims Under Insurance Policies

In the settlement of lawsuits involving insured claims, it is not uncommon that one condition of the settlement is that the defendant assign his or her claims under all applicable insurance policies to the party that filed suit.

Indeed, it is frequently the case that the defendant, particularly when the defendant is an individual, has a limited ability to pay a judgment and insurance coverage offers the best opportunity for a recovery by the suing party. Usually, such settlements are made without any serious thought being given to whether the defendant’s claim against its insurer is assignable; the assumption being that it is assignable.

However, insurance policies generally have anti-assignment clauses which prohibit the assignment of the policy, or an interest in the policy, without the insurer’s consent. These clauses come into play in determining the validity or enforceability of the assignment of a claim under an insurance policy and should be considered when such an assignment is part of a settlement.

When considering the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies, the courts generally draw a distinction between an assignment made prior to the occurrence of a covered loss (a “pre-loss” assignment) and an assignment made after the occurrence of a covered loss (a “post-loss” assignment).

In analyzing pre-loss assignments, the courts recognize that requiring an insurer to provide coverage to an assignee of its policy prior to the occurrence of a covered loss would place the insurer in the position of covering a party with whom it had not contracted nor been allowed to properly underwrite to assess the risks posed by that potential insured, and, accordingly, determine the appropriate premium to charge for the risks being undertaken or choose to decline coverage.

Post-loss assignments, on the other hand, take place after the insurer’s obligations under its policy have become fixed by the occurrence of a covered loss, thus the risk factors applicable to the assignee are irrelevant with regard to the covered loss in question. For these reasons, the majority of the courts enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict pre-loss assignments, but refuse to enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict post-loss assignments.

Katrina Cases

The Louisiana Supreme Court, which had not previously addressed the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses for post-loss assignments, was recently confronted with this issue in the In re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, litigation involving consolidated cases arising out of Hurricane Katrina. The issue arose as a result of a lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana as the assignee of claims under numerous insurance policies as part of the “Road Home” Program. The Road Home Program was set up following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to distribute federal funds to homeowners suffering damage from the hurricanes. In return for receiving a grant of up to $150,000, homeowners were required to execute a Limited Subrogation/Assignment agreement, which provided in pertinent part:

Pursuant to these Limited Subrogation/Assignments, the State of Louisiana brought suit against more than 200 insurance companies to recover funds dispensed under the Road Home Program. The suit was removed to Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act and the insurers filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the assignments to the State of Louisiana were invalid under the anti-assignment clauses in the homeowner policies at issue.

On appeal, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: “Does an anti-assignment clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, which by its plain terms purports to bar any assignment of the policy or an interest therein without the insurer’s consent, bar an insured’s post-loss assignment of the insured’s claims under the policy when such an assignment transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due?”

In answering this question, the Louisiana Supreme Court began by noting that, as a general matter, contractual rights are assignable unless the law, the contract terms or the nature of the contract preclude assignment. Specific to the certified question, Louisiana Civil Code article 2653 provides that a right “cannot be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that right.” The Louisiana Supreme Court observed that the language of article 2653 is broad and, on its face, applies to all assignments, including post-loss assignments of insurance claims. The Court, therefore, construed the issue confronting it as whether Louisiana public policy would enforce an anti-assignment clause to preclude post-loss assignments of claims under insurance policies.

In addressing the public policy question, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the distinction between pre-loss assignments and post-loss assignments discussed by courts from other states and noted that the prevailing view was that anti-assignment clauses were invalid and/or unenforceable when applied to post-loss assignments. Notwithstanding this weight of authority, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:

“[W]hile the Louisiana legislature has clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to assign contractual rights, by enacting La. C.C. art. 2653, it has also clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to contractually prohibit assignment of rights. We recognize the vast amount of national jurisprudence distinguishing between pre-loss and post-loss assignments and rejecting restrictions on post-loss assignments, however we find no public policy in Louisiana favoring assignability of claims over freedom of contract.”

Thus, Court refused to invalidate the enforceability of the anti-assignment clauses to the post-loss assignments before it based on public policy, adding that public policy determinations are better suited to the legislature.

Nonetheless, after having recognized the general enforceability of anti-assignment clauses to post-loss assignments, the Court immediately placed limits on when those clauses would be applicable, stating that to be applicable, they “must clearly and unambiguously express that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments.” The Court refused “to formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words,” which would satisfy this condition and remanded the case to the federal courts to determine whether the individual anti-assignment clauses in the various policies were sufficiently clear and explicit to be enforced with respect to post-loss assignments at issue.

A Broad Application

It should be noted that the Court’s opinion appears to apply broadly to all post-loss assignments irrespective of what specific rights are being assigned, despite the fact that the certified question was narrower and asked only about the applicability of a post-loss assignment where the assignment “transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due.”

In a footnote at the beginning of its opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that in certifying the question to it, the Fifth Circuit “disclaimed any intent” that the Court “confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the legal questions certified.” The footnote indicates that the Court’s opinion was not intended to be limited to only those post-loss assignments involving the assignment of contractual obligations.

Louisiana has departed from the majority view in holding that as a matter of general law, anti-assignment clauses are not inherently void with regard to post-loss assignments. However, it may be that in practical application, the results of individual cases may well be consistent with the majority rule of not enforcing anti-assignment clauses with regard to post-loss assignments because Louisiana courts may be reluctant to find that the anti-assignment clauses are sufficiently “clear and explicit” unless they specifically state that they apply to post-loss assignments, notwithstanding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s unwillingness to “formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words.”

Topics Lawsuits Carriers Claims Profit Loss Louisiana Hurricane Homeowners

Was this article valuable?

Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.

Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Written By Robert Redfearn, Jr.

From this issue.

Insurance Journal Magazine July 18, 2011

Excess, Surplus & Specialty Markets Directory Vol. II – The Industry’s Leading Coverage Placement Directory

Interested in carriers .

Get automatic alerts for this topic.

Categories: Legal Beat
Have a hot lead? Email us at [email protected]

Insurance Jobs

Outside Property Claim Representative Trainee (South San Francisco Bay Area) - San Jose, CA
Auto Design Business Process Lead Consultant – Remote - Chicago, IL
Early Careers: Employee Experience Analyst – Atlanta – 2024 - Atlanta, GA
Senior Global Specialist - Chicago, IL
Senior Lead Auditor (Remote-Home Based Worker) - Chicago, IL

3 Areas for Agents to Focus Growth Efforts in 2024 As the Hard Market Continues
Majority of Underwriters Predict Cyber Risks Grow 'Greatly' in 2024: Survey
What's to Come in 2024: AI Expansion, More Catastrophes, Network Consolidation
South Carolina Liquor Liability Market 'Extremely Unprofitable,' DOI Report Says
NCCI: Wage Growth Likely to Continue Workers Comp Payroll Growth

Six Presumed Dead After Bridge Collapse, as Port Disruptions Hit Cars to Coal
Clorox Audit Revealed Cybersecurity Flaws at Its Plants in 2020
30 Years of UIM Coverage Rules Are Wrong, North Carolina Supreme Court Says
Study: Most New Doctors Face Some Form of Sexual Harassment, Even After #Metoo
Johnson of Protective Insurance Joins CLARA Analytics Board

April 4 Cyber Insurance - Where in the World is Coverage?
April 11 Artificial Intelligence and Insurance Agents - Panic or Promise?
April 18 Waiting on the Grand Reopening: Business Income Essentials
April 25 Getting Back to Work: Workers' Comp and the Social Determinants of Health

New York Commercial Division Practice

Procedure & Practice for the Commercial Division Litigator

Can You Assign Your Rights Under an Insurance Contract that Prohibits Assignment? Only for Prior, Fixed Losses

In the insurance context, however, the enforcement of anti-assignment clauses is more complicated. Because insurers—like any contractual party—have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves from insureds’ assignment of the insurance agreement to a different, perhaps more risky party, anti-assignment clauses in insurance agreements are enforceable against assignments that occur prior to a covered loss . Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co . , 96 AD3d 693, 694 [1st Dept 2012]. But in circumstances where the assignment occurs after the covered loss , New York courts are more critical of anti-assignment clauses. In those circumstances, courts reason, there is no increased risk to the insured; the loss already occurred, and the only thing that changes as a result of the assignment is who the insurer will need to pay for that loss.

In Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London v AT&T, Corp. , 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31740[U] , a recent decision by New York Commercial Division Justice Cohen , the Court explores the exceptions to the general rules regarding anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies. Ultimately, the case underscores the difficulties insurers face in disclaiming coverage by enforcement of an anti-assignment clause in the policy.

The dispute in Certain Underwriters stems from the coverage dispute between Nokia of America Corporation and the several insurers who issued policies to Nokia’s predecessor, AT&T, for a series of asbestos liabilities that Nokia inherited from AT&T.

In 1996, AT&T restructured its global organization into three independent businesses by execution of a tri-party Separation and Distribution Agreement (the “SDA”). As part of the SDA, AT&T transferred to Lucent (now Nokia) all “right, title, and interest in all Lucent Assets.” The SDA clarified:

[T]he parties intend by this Agreement that Lucent and each other member of the Lucent Group be successors-in-interest to all rights that any member of the Lucent Group may have as of the Closing Date as a subsidiary, affiliate, division or department of AT&T prior to the Closing Date under any policy of insurance issued to AT&T by any insurance carrier unaffiliated with AT&T[,] . . . including any rights such member of the Lucent Group may have as an insured or additional named insured, subsidiary, affiliate, division or department, to avail itself of any such policy of insurance . . . as in effect prior to the Closing Date.

(SDA § 7.1 [c] [emphasis added]). The SDA also provided for Nokia to assume all of certain liabilities arising out of certain lines of AT&T’s businesses.

Since at least 1996, Nokia has been sued in thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits stemming from pre-1996 operations of certain AT&T businesses. AT&T (what remains after the SDA) also is sued in these asbestos cases; often times, Nokia and AT&T are named as codefendants by the same plaintiff.

AT&T sought coverage for the asbestos-related suits under its insurance policies. The massive and protracted Certain Underwriters case consolidates all of coverage-related disputes between AT&T and its insurers.

Nokia, as successor in interest to AT&T’s insurance policies, also sought coverage for the asbestos-related suits in which it is named as a defendant. The insurers who issued loss policies to AT&T denied Nokia coverage, arguing that: (i) the plain language of the SDA did not assign to Nokia the rights under their policies, and (ii) even if the SDA did assign those rights, the insurance agreements’ anti-assignment clauses prohibited such assignments.

Justice Cohen Grants Nokia’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Nokia moved for summary judgment on a narrow issue: is it an insured party under AT&T’s legacy policies by virtue of AT&T’s assignment of those policies in the SDA? Or, as the insurers argue, was AT&T’s purported assignment of its insurance policies to Nokia in the SDA invalid?

Justice Cohen made short work of the insurers’ argument that the plain language of the SDA was insufficient to assign to Nokia the rights under the operative insurance policies. The fact that the SDA did not use “use talismanic words like ‘assign’ or ‘transfer’ is immaterial,” the Court held, since “[t]he text of the SDA demonstrates, in several ways, the contracting parties’ intent to assign AT&T’s rights under the Legacy Policies.”

A much closer question, however, was the effect of the anti-assignment clauses in the operative policies. The Court acknowledged that the general rule—anti-assignment clauses in insurance agreements do not prohibit assignments occurring after the covered loss—is subject to a critical exception: a post-loss assignment may nonetheless be barred by an anti-assignment clause where the assignment materially increases the risk on the insured. See Globecon Group, LLC v Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 434 F3d 165, 171 [2d Cir 2006] [“Under New York law, a no-transfer clause may, in certain unusual circumstances, remain valid as to some pre-transfer claims even though the loss occurred before the transfer”]).

For example, in Holt v. Fidelity Phoenix Fire Ins. Co , 273 AD 166, 168 [3d Dept 1948], a fire forced the closure of a movie theatre and the theatre’s owner made a claim for lost profits under its business interruption insurance. When the theatre owner sold the business a few days later, the new owner tried to make a claim for the lost profits that he incurred after he bought the business. In the subsequent coverage suit, the Third Department sided with the insurer, reasoning that although the fire occurred before the assignment, the assignment of the lost profits policy was invalid because it materially increased the risk to the insurers, who never agreed to pay the lost profits of some other business.

Here, the insurers argued that even though the covered losses ( i.e ., the alleged asbestos exposure) occurred before the SDA, AT&T’s assignment to Nokia was invalid under the policies’ anti-assignment clauses because that assignment materially increased the insurers’ risk and costs under the policies. Specifically, the assignment to Nokia wrongly caused the insureds to insure two corporations instead of one, AT&T and Nokia. And because the two corporations are often named in the same suit, defense costs and potential liabilities were multiplied. The insurers pointed to a case in which Nokia and AT&T, as co-defendants, failed to cooperate in the defense of an asbestos claim and instead reached separate settlements with the plaintiff for vastly different sums. Having to pay both of those settlements, the insureds argued, was proof positive of their increased risk.

The Court rejected the insurers’ argument that the increased costs of having to defend Nokia and AT&T materially increased the insurers’ risk such that the anti-assignment clause should be enforced. The Court reasoned that unlike the business interruption losses claimed in Holt , the asbestos-based losses here are the same now as if the assignment had not occurred. Increased defense costs, standing alone, is not grounds to invalidate the assignment. If that were the case, the Court reasoned, there would never be a permissible assignment of “insurance rights between entities that face common litigation threats, because any such assignment could drive up total defense costs to the insurer.”

Moreover, the Court held that the Insurers had plenty of contractual mechanisms to keep defense costs in check, including defense cooperation provisions. With sharp oversight, the insureds can keep their defense costs from ballooning.

The Takeaway

Those restructuring their business or otherwise considering assigning their rights under an insurance agreement must tread carefully. The agreement’s anti-assignment provision likely will invalidate coverage for any after-arising claims and for prior claims with losses that are speculative at the time of assignment (such as lost profits). But Certain Underwriters offers some measure of comfort; that the assignment may potentially result in increased defense costs is, without more, insufficient to invalidate an assignment.

RIA Members Login with Your Membership Credentials and Access Your Member Only Benefits Here.

AOBs and Assignments of Insurance Rights

There are a multitude of hardships that Restoration Industry Association members face every day but one issue that is gaining more traction in the restoration industry is “assignment of benefits” (AOB). We talked in depth to attorney Ed Cross, RIA’s Restoration Advocate, and founding Chair of the Association’s Advocacy & Government Affairs (AGA) Committee, about the incredible opportunities AOBs present for the restoration industry — and to gather some tips when signing one.

What Is “Assignment of Benefits?” To put it plainly, assignment of benefits is a transfer of the legal title to a portion of an insurance claim over to a service provider. When someone has a loss on their property and they make a claim using their insurance policy, that claim can be transferred to another party. This allows contractors to control their own destinies and make legal claims directly against insurance companies who fail to pay the fair market value for restoration work, or insist on using standardized price lists as universal pricing. Xactware has repeatedly made clear that its pricing data is not intended to be used as global pricing and that contractors should set their own prices.

Many people do not have the money to restore their buildings after they’ve been damaged by a flood, fire, or other instances, but they need the restoration work done immediately.

“Contractors take an assignment of benefits in order to have security that their bill is going to get paid,” Cross said. “They do this in exchange for the assurance of immediate payment. So, there's an expectation that the insurance company is going to pay the bill.”

A Game of Cat and Mouse According to Cross, many times when the policyholder receives the insurance money, they aren’t interested in paying for anything. This puts the restoration contractor in a bind.

“Sometimes the policyholder will use it to pay off the mortgage on their house,” Cross said. “So now, not only do they have essentially a brand new house, it's also paid for, free and clear, at the expense of the restoration contractor who is not in a position to take back the work.”

Unlike a car being repossessed if you can’t make the payments on it, a restoration contractor isn’t in the position to take back their work. A contractor could file a lien, but that is a long, complex, and expensive process which could one day put a property into foreclosure, but that’s a rare outcome.

To increase the chance that the contractor’s name will appear on an insurance check, contractors in most states may obtain ownership of the portion of the insurance claim they were hired to address. This frequently allows the contractor to step into the shoes of the policyholder and collect directly from the insurance company. If the insurance company does not name the contractor on the check and the insured runs with the money, the contractor may be able to force the insurance company to pay again. Cross has done this many times against major insurance carriers.

Restoration contractors have the resources, the energy, and the wherewithal to pursue this collection and to press the insurance company to pay fair value, whereas a typical policyholder doesn't have the resources, the expertise, or the desire to ensure that the contractor gets paid in full. This can leave the restoration contractors in a rough spot: those needing work will go with whatever the policy will pay, and if it pays too little, who should they go after?

“Many contractors agree to work for the amount of insurance proceeds,” Cross said. “And if the insurance company decides it wants to pay little or nothing, as they often want to do, the contractor gets left holding the bag. It places them in the predicament of trying to decide, do I sue my customer? Or do I try to go after this insurance company?”

Assignments got a bad rap because of an extraordinary law in the State of Florida that encouraged litigation by allowing the holder of an assignment to collect attorney’s fees in a lawsuit against an insurance company, even if there was no wrongdoing by the insurance company. The insurance lobby put an end to that when F.S. 627.7152 was passed. Among other things, it says that the holder of an assignment waives the right to collect money from an insured. It also greatly limited the scenarios when the holder of an assignment could collect attorney’s fees. This effectively eliminated assignments in State of Florida. Cross warns contractors against using assignments in the State of Florida, but points out that the issues there are present nowhere else in the country. Assignments should not be judged by unique circumstances in Florida that ended three years ago.

The States of Texas and Oregon generally refuse to enforce assignments of benefits, but they allow the assignment of a legal claim. Thus, if the insurance company breaches the insurance contract by underpaying on a claim, for example, or commits insurance bad faith, the contractor may be able to take ownership of the legal claim and sue the insurance company directly. But in most other states, contractors can and should seek assignments.

When policyholders either run off with the insurance money or use it to pay something off, (such as their mortgage), with a well-executed AOB you can go back to the insurance company and demand that they pay a second time.

“Ultimately, they write a second check when they're unable to get the policyholder to pay out the money,” Cross said. “And we're often able to do that without filing a lawsuit.”

Unfortunately, the insurance industry does not train adjusters to know that assignments of benefits need to be honored. Adjusters are often dismissive of them and give all the money to the policyholder — which is when things get out of control.

The AGA is out to change all of that. It will be releasing a 50-state Summary of the Law of Assignments regarding the enforceability of assignment of benefits which contractors can use in their communications and negotiations with stubborn insurance companies. At the RIA Convention in Orlando on June 29, 2021, Cross will present the first session of the AGA Academy, which will teach contractors how to prepare, present, and prosecute assignments using RIA’s Summary of the Law of Assignments. The event is rapidly selling out and contractors should sign up now to avoid missing this special opportunity.

Tips for Contractors and AOB’s Cross offers three points that every restoration contractor should take into account when looking to sign an AOB.

The first is that most restorers mistakenly believe that they have an AOB, when in fact, all they have is a direction to pay.

“The typical restoration work authorization says that the policyholder instructs the insurance company to name the contractor on the check and correctly to name the contractor on the check,” Cross said. “Contractors think that's an assignment. It's not an assignment; it is merely a direction to pay.”

An assignment is a transfer of legal title, meaning that ownership of part of the insurance claim is being transferred to the contractor. This puts the contractor in “privity” (a legal relationship) with the insurer that allows the contractor to obtain remedies based on the insurance policy. A direction to pay should be included in an assignment of benefits document. But it is not, in and of itself, an assignment because it does not transfer ownership.

Second is that an assignment should include more than the assignment of “benefits.” It should also include an assignment of the right to go to appraisal. Appraisal is a process under the insurance policy where if a policyholder and an insurance company are unable to agree on the amount of loss, they can submit the matter to independent appraiser, who sets the amount of the loss.

Last, and most important, the assignment should also include an assignment of the right to sue the insurance company for breach of the policy and for insurance bad faith in jurisdictions that recognize this. This is why Cross no longer generates “Assignments of benefits” for his clients; he generates “Assignments of Insurance Rights .” A well-drafted Assignment of Insurance rights includes assignments of benefits, the right to appraisal, and the rights to sue, as well as a direction to pay.

Don’t miss out on the 75 th Diamond Anniversary International Restoration Convention + Industry Expo! Click here to register and find out more!

Assignment of Benefits (AOB)

Have you heard of the term assignment of benefits ? Do you know how it impacts you? An AOB is an agreement that, once signed, transfers the insurance claims rights or benefits of your insurance policy to a third party.

An AOB gives the third party authority to file a claim, make repair decisions and collect insurance payments without your involvement.

Review the resources below to better understand how transferring your insurance claims rights can impact you and your family.

What is an assignment of benefits?

An AOB is an agreement that transfers the insurance claims rights or benefits of the policy to a third party. An AOB gives the third party authority to file a claim, make repair decisions, and collect insurance payments without the involvement of the homeowner. AOBs have been used with life and health insurance policies for many years. However, AOBs are now being commonly used in homeowners’ insurance claims by restoration companies and contractors. Signing an AOB can be helpful with navigating the claims process, but if misused, it can lead to harmful consequences for the homeowner.

For example, you have a pipe leak in your home that causes water damage. If you call a restoration company to make repairs and sign an AOB that transfers your insurance rights to the company, the company can file a claim on your behalf and be paid directly.

What information must be included in an assignment of benefits?

The AOB must contain a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the third-party assignee and it must only relate to the work to be performed for services to protect, repair, restore, or replace a dwelling or structure or to mitigate against further damage to such property.

The AOB must contain a notification in 18-point, uppercase, boldfaced font that advises you that you are giving up certain rights under your insurance policy to a third party. The notification must also include the rescission terms.

The AOB must contain a provision that requires the third-party assignee to indemnify and hold you harmless from all liabilities, damages, losses, and costs (including attorney fees) if the policy prohibits an AOB. The execution of the AOB constitutes a waiver by the third-party assignee and its subcontractors of claims against you for payment arising from the AOB. The third-party assignee and its subcontractors may not collect, or attempt to collect money from you, maintain any action of law against you, file a lien against your property or report you to a credit reporting agency.

The AOB prohibits the third-party assignee from seeking payment from you in any amount in excess of the applicable policy deductible unless you have agreed to have additional work performed at your own expense.

The AOB cannot assign the right to recover attorney fees to the third-party assignee. In a suit related to an assignment agreement for claims arising under a residential or commercial property damage, the right to recover attorney fees stays with the assignor.

Florida law prohibits a third-party assignee from including the following charges/fees in an AOB:

A penalty or fee for rescission of the AOB during the timeframes outlined in the AOB.
A check or mortgage processing fee.
A penalty or fee for cancellation of the AOB.
An administrative fee.

If you are concerned with the language or terms of the contract, you should seek legal advice prior to signing the AOB. If you have questions as to whether the AOB incorporates the provisions required by Florida law, you may contact the Florida Department of Financial Services Insurance Consumer Helpline at 877-693-5236. If the AOB complies with all requirements stipulated by law, once the AOB has been signed, if the third-party assignee will not agree to release you from the contract, the only recourse is to pursue resolution in a court of law.

What responsibilities does the third-party assignee have under an assignment of benefits?

The assignee must provide a copy of the AOB to your insurance company within 3 business days following its execution, or the date work commenced, whichever is earlier.

The assignee must comply with certain policyholder duties as stipulated by the policy including the responsibility to maintain records of all services provided, cooperate with the insurance company’s claim investigation and provide the insurance company with requested records and documents related to the services provided. As a pre-condition to filing suit, the assignee must submit to examinations under oath or recorded statements related to the services provided, the associated cost, and the AOB itself.

Is an assignment of benefits a legal contract? How can I get out of the contract?

Yes. An AOB is a legal contract and it must contain three specific cancellation provisions.

The AOB must provide you with an option to rescind the AOB contract within 14 days following its execution by submitting written notice to the third party.
The AOB must provide you with the option to rescind the AOB at least 30 days following its execution if the AOB does not contain a commencement date, and the third party has not begun substantial work on the property.
The AOB must provide you with the option to rescind the AOB if the third party has not “substantially performed” at least 30 days following the scheduled commencement date.

NOTE: Recent legislative changes prohibit a policyholder from assigning any post-loss benefits of a residential or commercial property insurance contract issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2023. Therefore, Assignment of Benefit agreements may not be established for claims made under contracts subject to this new law.

If I have suffered damage to my insured property, what should I do first?

If you have damage, you should take the necessary steps to mitigate the damage and prevent any additional damage from occurring. This would include any temporary repairs such as covering the roof or removing standing water. You should also immediately contact your insurance company to inform them of the damage and file a claim.

Do not allow a third party, such as a water remediation firm or contractor, to contact your insurance company for you. You should be the one to make the first contact with your insurance company. You do not need to sign an AOB in order to get your insurance claim processed or your residence repaired.

How does an assignment of benefits impact me, as a homeowner?

An AOB can be helpful with navigating the claims process, but if misused it can lead to harmful consequences. Below are a few things to keep in mind:

You are signing over the rights and benefits of your insurance policy to a third party.
Depending on the language in the AOB, the insurance company may only be permitted to communicate directly with the third party and you may lose all rights to the insurance claim, including the right to mediate the claim, or to make any decisions regarding the claim, including repairs.
Depending on the language in the AOB, the third party may be able to endorse checks on your behalf.
Once you have signed an AOB, the third party may file suit against your insurance company.

Tips to remember before and after you have suffered damage:

Thoroughly review your insurance policy to ensure you understand the policy, including your coverage, deductibles and responsibilities after damage has occurred. You must also verify if your policy prohibits or otherwise restricts an AOB.
Immediately following a loss, you have a contractual duty to mitigate your damages and make any temporary repairs to prevent further damage from occurring. Document any existing damage with photographs prior to making any repairs. Do not make permanent repairs prior to an inspection by the insurance company adjuster. The company has a right to inspect the damage prior to repair.
Make sure you thoroughly review and understand any contracts you sign with repair companies, including an AOB. If you do not agree with the provisions of the AOB, you may be able to negotiate the provisions of the contract. You do not need to sign an AOB to get your insurance claim processed or your residence repaired. If you are asked to sign an AOB, make sure you read it carefully and clearly understand what rights and benefits you may be signing away.
Verify the license (if one is required) of any contractor or vendor that you hire to make repairs to your property. You should also verify the company or person’s general liability and workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

Below is a checklist that may be helpful when reporting a claim:

Contact your insurance company directly to report the damage and set up a time for the adjuster to inspect the damages. Do not allow a third party, such as a water remediation firm or contractor, to contact your insurance company for you. You should be the one to make the first contact with your insurance company - as soon as possible.
Take photos of the damage.
Make emergency or temporary repairs.
Make an inventory of any damaged items.
Save receipts for any repairs.
Do not discard any damaged items without prior approval from the insurance company.
Make a list of any questions you would like to ask the insurance adjuster.
Request a copy of the fire or police report, if applicable.

Assignment of Benefits (AOB) is an agreement that transfers the insurance claims rights or benefits of the policy to a third party. An AOB gives the third party authority to file a claim, make repair decisions, and collect insurance payments without the involvement of the homeowner. AOBs are commonly used in homeowners’ insurance claims by water remediation companies and contractors.

Assignor is a person who assigns insurance claims rights or policy benefits to another person or entity through an AOB.

Assignee or Third-Party is a person or entity who is assigned insurance claims rights or policy benefits through an AOB and has the authority to file a claim with the insurance company, make repair decisions and collect insurance payments without the involvement of the homeowner.

Contract for Repair is a legal agreement for repairs that outlines the scope and cost of repairs to be completed. A contract for repair may state a certain amount is due up front before repairs can be started. If an initial payment is required, it will be listed on the contract and state the remaining balance is to be paid upon completion of the work. Most insurance companies will honor a contract for repair and make the check for outstanding amounts payable to the policyholder and the contractor.

Direct Payment Authorization Clause provides authorization for the direct payment of any benefits or proceeds to the company that is performing the work. This clause is found in an AOB and a contract for repair. Depending on the language in the AOB or the contract for repair, the third party may be able to endorse checks received from the insurance company on behalf of the policyholder for services provided by them. Also, the policyholder is responsible for payment of their deductible and any additional work requested by the policyholder not covered by the insurance policy.

Power of Attorney is a legal document by which one person authorizes another person to take specific actions on behalf of that person, as stated in the document.

Hold Harmless Agreement is an agreement that releases and holds a company harmless against all liability claims in the event the work is halted prior to completion.

Assignment of Benefits Video View this scenario-based video to understand how signing an Assignment of Benefits may impact you as a policyholder. Watch Video

Assignment of Benefits Brochure This downloadable brochure includes definitions, tips and information on Assignment of Benefits. English or Spanish

Consumer Tips & Red Flags Know your rights and the red flags to look for when making a decision concerning Assignment of Benefits. English or Spanish

What to Expect After Filing a Homeowners Claim Learn more about what to expect after reporting a claim to your insurance company or agent. English , Spanish or Creole

The Flood Claims Process Learn more about what to expect after reporting a flood claim to your insurance company or agent. English

Assignments In Insurance Law

Introduction

1.1 Nature Of Insurance Policies

1.2 Assignment

2. Application Of English Law

2.1 Generally

2.2 Policies Of Assurance Act 1867

2.3 Marine Insurance Act 1906

3. marine insurance, 4. property insurance, 5. motor insurance, 6. life insurance, 6.1 legal assignment, 6.2 equitable assignment, 6.3 incomplete assignment, 6.4 priorities.

7.1 Assignment Of Insurance Policies
7.2 Assignment Of The Proceeds Of Insurance Policies
7.3 Assignment Of The Subject Matter Of Insurance Policies
7.4 Assignment By Operation Of Law

7.5 Conditions Prohibiting Assignment

8. conclusion, assignments in insurance law.

The concept of assignments in insurance law takes on many forms - firstly due to the various branches of insurance law and secondly due to the various components in an insurance transaction that can be assigned. The format of this discussion, therefore, is reflective of this framework.

Assignments are first discussed in the context of the following branches of insurance law:

(i) marine insurance,

(ii) property insurance,

(iii) motor insurance, and

(iv) life insurance.

The next stage of this discussion focuses on what may be assigned in an insurance transaction and how such assignments are legally effected, namely, the assignment of:

(a) an insurance policy,

(b) the proceeds of an insurance policy, and

1.1 Nature of Insurance Policies

A. A. Tarr, Kwai-Lian Liew & W. Holligan writes:

“The origins of insurance date back thousands of years. For example, a central feature of insurance, that of risk interference, was incorporated in commercial arrangements effected by the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans. However, the infancy of the modern insurance contract is founded on the practices adopted by Italian merchants in the 14th century. These merchants fostered the development of marine insurance and were reluctant to accept the numerous and diverse risks associated with the mercantile adventure of transporting goods across the sea; an early policy entered into in 1385 insured a ship and cargo against loss arising ‘from Acts of God, of the sea, of fire, of jettison, of confiscation by princes or cities or any other person, of reprisal, mishap or any other impediment’. Merchants in their relations with one another tended to uniformity on commercial matters and this tendency led to the rapid dissemination if marine insurance practices to other countries, and, in particular, to the low countries, Spain and England.” [1]

Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone writes:

“Non-marine insurance first made its appearance in the form of life and fire insurance, but until the middle of the nineteenth century these three [2] types of insurance comprised, in practice, substantially the whole range of insurance.”

The practice of taking insurance and property and later, lives, has a long and rich history. Unsatisfied with leaving the health and safety of property and lives to the capricious whims of fate alone, our ancestors have sought to ‘hedge their bets’ by entering into an insurance transaction.

John Lowry & Philip Rawlings writes:

“The aim of insurance is to shift risk from one person (the insured) to another (the insurers): the owner of a house enters into a fire policy under which an insurer, in exchange for a premium paid by the insured, agrees to pay for damage caused to the property by fire.” [3]

Professor K. S. N. Murthy & K. V. S. Sarma writes:

“The aim of all insurance is to protect the owner from a variety of risks which he anticipates.” [4]

John Birds and Norma J. Hird observe that:

“It is suggested that a contract of insurance is any contract whereby one party assumes the risk of an uncertain event, which is not within his control, happening at a future time, in which event the other party has an interest, and under which contract the first party is bound to pay money or provide its equivalent if the uncertain event occurs.” [5]

In Rayner v Preston [6] , Brett L.J. explained the nature of a contract of insurance in the following terms:

“Now, in my judgment, the subject-matter of the contract of insurance is money, and money only. The subject-matter of insurance is a different thing from the subject-matter of the contract of insurance. The subject-matter of insurance may be a house or other premises in a fire policy, or may be a ship or goods in a marine policy. These are the subject-matter of insurance, but the subject-matter of the contract is money, and money only. The only result of the policy, if an accident which is within the insurance happens, is a payment of money. It is true that under certain circumstances in a fire policy there may be an option to spend the money in rebuilding the premises, but that does not alter the fact that the only liability of the insurance company is to pay money. The contract, therefore, is a contract with regard to the payment of money, and it is a contract made between two persons, and two persons, only, as a contact.” [7]

Poh Chu Chai writes:

“A contract of insurance constitutes a highly personal contract and as a general rule, such a contract is generally not assignable.” [8]

The insurer fixes the premium after considering the particular risks associated with the property and handling of the property in the hands of the insured. As such, as a general rule, an insurance policy is not casually assignable to another party. Nevertheless, assignments are not an unheard of option in an insurance transaction.

Before embarking on the discovery of how assignments in insurance law can be legally effected, it may prove beneficial to consider the nature of what is meant by this phrase which takes centre stage in this discussion, an ‘assignment’.

R. C. Kohli explains:

“Transfer of interest from one to another is called assignment. In insurance also when rights and obligation under the contract are transferred from one to another, the same is called assignment of the policy. There can be another assignment in insurance which is assignment of benefits under the policies. Assignment of policy and assignment of benefits are quite distinct. Whereas in the former all the rights and obligations are transferred, in the latter only benefits (i.e. money due under the policy etc) are transferred. In insurance the assignment means assignment of rights under the contract. An assignee for all purposes becomes the owner of the policy and enjoys all rights thereunder. However, by assignment no change is made in the subject matter insured by the policy and it remains unaltered.” [9]

David Norwood and John P. Weir writes:

“There is no special form of assignment document, no magic words which must be used to create a valid and effective legal assignment. As was expressed in one case [10] : ‘[An assignment] ... may be addressed to the debtor. It may be couched in the language of command, It may be a courteous request. It may assume the form of mere permission. The language is immaterial if the meaning is clear.’

The only important point is that the instrument recording the assignment must make it clear that one party with a contractual right against another party is transferring their right of enforcement of the obligations of the contract to another person.” [11]

Malcolm A. Clarke writes :

“Assignment must have been intended. Intention is ascertained by the substance rather than the form of what is said or done.” [12]

2. Application of English Law

Another introductory matter which must be considered in this discussion is the source of law in the insurance arena in Malaysia.

The governing statute in Malaysia in the field of insurance law is the Insurance Act 1996 [13] . This Act, however, does not seem to mention the issue of assigning insurance policies. As such, the provisions of the Civil Law Act 1956 [14] may be referred to in order to provide valuable guidance on the matter.

Section 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956 provides:

“Save so far as other provision has been made or may hereafter be made by any written law in force in Malaysia, the Court shall -

(a) in West Malaysia or any part thereof, apply the common law of England and the rules of equity as administered in England on the 7 th day of April, 1956;...

Provided always that the said common law, rules of equity and statutes of general application shall be applied so far only as the circumstances of the States of Malaysia and their respective inhabitants permit and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary.”

Section 5(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 makes particular reference to life and fire insurance. This section provides that :

“In all questions or issues which arise or which have to be decided in the States of West Malaysia ... with respect to the law of ... marine insurance, average, life and fire insurance ... the law to be administered shall be the same as would be administered in England in the like case at the date of the coming into force of this Act [15] , if such question or issue had arisen or had to be decided in England, unless in any case other provision is or shall be made by any written law.”

With the aid of these provisions, English law has often been referred to for guidance in resolving legal dilemmas in the field of insurance law and since the Malaysian Act on point does not seem to have covered the matter of the assignment of insurance policies, as will be discussed below, many academicians and Malaysian judges have relied on the principles enunciated in the English courts and Parliament on this matter.

2.2 Policies of Assurance Act 1867

There is one particular dilemma highlighted by Nik Ramlah Mahmood with regard to the applicability of the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 [16] of England with regard to the legal assignment of life policies. As this author explains :

“In England, a life policy can be legally assigned in accordance with the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 which deals specifically with such assignment or in accordance with section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 [17] which deals with the assignment of a chose in action. [18] ...

As there is no parallel local statute, the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 (UK) is assumed to be applicable in Malaysia and is generally regarded as the only basis for legal assignment of a life policy. The validity of this assumption, however, is questionable. There is in Malaysia a provision similar to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (UK). This is section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 which provides for the absolute assignment of a chose in action. The existence of this provision can have two possible effects on the law relating to legal assignment of life policies in Malaysia.

One possible effect is that contrary to popular belief and practice, the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 (UK) is in fact inapplicable in Malaysia. According to section 5 of the Civil Law Act 1856, an English Act like the 1867 Act can only be applied if there are no local statutory provisions on the related issue. As the assignment of a life policy is in fact the assignment of a chose in action and there is a local provision on this, there seems to be no valid justification for applying the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 in Malaysia.

The other possible effect is that there are, in Malaysia as in England, two different statutory provisions relating to the assignment of life policies, one under the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 (UK) and the other under the Civil Law Act 1956. As the Civil Law Act provision deals with the assignment of a chose in action generally, its existence should not prevent the application of an English statute which deals specifically with the assignment of life policies.

While a finding by a Malaysian court in favour of the first possible interpretation may alarm those in the insurance industry who have always regarded the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 of England to be the sole basis for the legal assignment of a life policy, such a finding may in the long term bring the practices of the industry in Malaysia in line with those in England where such assignments are now more commonly done under the Law of Property Act than under the Policies of Assurance Act.” [19]

There is no statute in Malaysia that deals exclusively with the area of marine insurance. As such, as Salleh Abas C.J. clarified in The “Melanie” United Oriental Assurance Sdn. Bhd. Kuantan v. W.M. Mazzarol [20] :

“... we must refer to ... the Marine Insurance Act 1906 of the United Kingdom. This Act is made applicable to Malaysia as part of our law by virtue of section 5(1) [21] of our Civil Law Act 1956.” [22]

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 [23] contains a few sections dealing with the concept of assignment in marine insurance. Section 50 of this Act states :

“(1) A marine policy is assignable unless it contains terms expressly prohibiting assignment. It may be assigned either before or after loss.

(2) Where a marine policy has been assigned so as to pass the beneficial interest in such policy, the assignee of the policy is entitled to sue thereon in his own name; and the defendant is entitled to make any defence arising out of the contract which he would have been entitled to make if the action had been brought in the name of the person by or on behalf of whom the policy was effected.

(3) A marine policy may be assigned by indorsement thereon or in other customary manner.” [24]

Section 51 of this Act reads :

“Where the assured has parted with or lost his interest in the subject-matter insured, and has not, before or at the time of so doing, expressly or impliedly agreed to assign the policy, any subsequent assignment of the policy is inoperative.

Provided that nothing in this section affects the assignment of a policy after loss.” [25]

In Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance , section 51 of this Act is explained as having the effect such that :

“This rule is an obvious corollary of insurable interest: if the assignor loses insurable interest, the policy lapses and there is thus nothing to assign. In the converse case, where the assured assigns the policy without assigning the subject-matter, the assignee has no insurable interest and is thus unable to sue on the policy.” [26]

Section 15 of this Act provides :

“Where the assured assigns or otherwise parts with his interest in the subject-matter insured, he does not thereby transfer to the assignee his rights under the contract of insurance, unless there can be an express or implied agreement with the assignee to that effect.

But the provisions of this section do not affect a transmission of interest by operation of law.” [27]

In the book, Macgillivray & Parkington on Insurance Law - relating to all risks other than marine [28] , the position when the subject-matter insured is assigned is summarised as :

“If the assured voluntarily parts with all his interest in the subject-matter of the insurance policy, the policy lapses since the assured no longer has any insurable interest and can have suffered no loss [29] . The assignment must, however, be complete [30] and if the assured retains any insurable interest he will be able to recover under the policy; thus, if he enters into a contract to convey the subject-matter and the subject-matter is lost or damaged, the assured can still recover even though the risk has passed to the purchaser [31] ; until the vendor is paid he cannot be certain of receiving the purchase price and it is in effect this risk which, in such a case, is the subject of insurance. [32] The policy will probably remain in force ever after conveyance if the purchase price has not been paid, provided that the vendor has not parted with his lien. The lien will ensure that the assured still has an insurable interest. [33] An assured who enters into a contract of sale will often agree to transfer the insurance policy and, if he effectively does so, the transferee will be able to recover under it.”

Digby C. Jess writes:

“Property and liability insurances are personal contracts, and do not run with the property if it is sold or otherwise disposed of or with a transfer of liabilities of the insured. Therefore, both at common law and equity, as assignment of a policy of insurance can only be valid of the insurer consents to this course, whereby, in truth a new contract of insurance is effected between the assignee and the insurer, and that between the assignor (the original insured) and the insurer lapses.” [34]

In The North of England Pure Oil-Cake Company v The Archangel Maritime Insurance Company, [35] a firm insured a cargo of linseed to be transported by sea. The policy was to cover every stage of the voyage as if each stage of the voyage were separately insured and the policy of insurance was expressed to be for the benefit of the firm and the assignees. During the voyage, the firm sold the cargo. Part of the cargo was sunk due to perils within the terms of the policy. Later, the firm assigned the policy to the purchasers of the linseed.

Cockburn C.J. in this case held :

“We are agreed on one point, which entitles the defendants to judgment, viz. that, the policy not having been assigned until after the interest of the assignors had ceased, an effective assignment was impossible.” [36]

In Sadler’s Company and Badcock, [37] a lessee of a house insured the house from fire. After the lessee’s lease expired but while the insurance policy was still in effect, the house burnt down. Following the destruction of the house, the lessee assigned the policy to the landlords. The landlords then attempted to claim the benefit of the policy from the insurance company.

The Lord Chancellor in this case decided that a policyholder could not assign a policy at a point in time when the policyholder does not have any interest in the insured property. The lessee in this case was not able to assign the policy since at the time the lessee purported to assign the policy the lessee had no longer any interest in the house. In the words of the judge :

“And I am of opinion that the party insured ought to have a property in the thing insured at the time of the insurance made, and at the time of the loss by fire, or he cannot be relieved. Mrs. Strode [the lessee] had no property at the time of the fire, consequently no loss to her; and if she had no interest, nothing could pass to the plaintiffs [landlords] by assignment. ...

If the insured was not to have a property at the time of the insurance or loss, any one might insure another’s house, which might have a bad tendency to burning houses. Insuring the thing from damage is not the meaning of the policy, it must mean insuring Mrs. Strode from damage, and she has suffered none.” [38]

In The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v The Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation, [39] one ecclesiastical body sold a farm that was covered by a fire insurance policy to another ecclesiastical body. At the time of the sale, no mention was made about the assignment of the policy. After the sale, the farm burnt down and the purchaser seeks to claim on the policy.

The insurance company argues that there was no valid assignment of the policy and as such, the insurance company is not liable to the seller since the seller had no interest in the insured property and thus have no insurable interest at the time of the accident nor the purchaser since the policy has not been validly assigned to the purchaser. Charles J. in this case agreed with the arguments of the insurance company and held:

“The whole transaction was complete. Can anybody sue? The Commissioners [seller] cannot sue because there has been no assignment of the policy to them. ... In this case the vendors have conveyed away their property and received their consideration ... I must therefore give judgment for the defendants [insurance company], with costs.” [40]

In Collinridge v The Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation, [41] a company which owned a number of buildings insured the same against fire. These buildings were indeed destroyed by fire. However, before the fire took place, these buildings were in the process of being acquired by the Metropolitan Board of Works. There was no mention of an accompanying assignment of the fire insurance policy. The Board had yet to make payments for the conveyance. The insurance company disputes liability.

Mellor J. in this case held:

“It appears that the plaintiff at the time of the fire was in the position of unpaid vendor, and had possession of his premises. Under these circumstances, I think there is nothing to prevent him from bringing an action to recover the amount which he has insured.” [42]

Lush J. in this case concurred :

“The plaintiff is in the position of a person who has entered into a contract to sell his property to another. ... The contract will no doubt be completed, but legally the buildings are still his property. The defendants [insurance company] by their policy undertook to make good any loss or damage to the property by fire. There is nothing to shew that any collateral dealings with the premises, such as those stated in this case, are to limit his liability. If the plaintiff had actually conveyed them away before the fire, that would have been a defence to the action, for he would have then have had no interest at the time of the loss. But in the present case he still has a right to the possession of his property, and the defendants are bound to pay him the insurance money ...” [43]

In Rayner v Preston, [44] a set of buildings covered by a fire insurance policy were contracted to be sold. After the date the contract was signed but before the contract was completed, the buildings were damaged by fire. The contract contained no mention of the fire insurance policy. The insurance company made payments to the seller of the buildings. The purchaser seeks to claim this money or to compel the seller to apply the money received towards making repairs to the buildings.

The first argument proposed by the purchaser was that although the contract made no specific mention of the insurance policy, the contract gave the purchaser a right to all contracts related to the buildings. Cotton L.J. in this case was not in support of this contention and held :

“The contact passes all things belonging to the vendors appurtenant to or necessarily connected with the use and enjoyment of the property mentioned in the contract, but not, in my opinion, collateral contracts; and such, in my opinion, ... the policy of insurance is. It is not a contract limiting or affecting the interest of the vendors in the property sold, of affecting their right to enforce the contract of sale, for it is conceded that, if there were no insurance and the buildings sold were burnt, the contract for sale would be enforced. It is not even a contract in the event of a fire to repair the buildings, but a contract in that event to pay the vendors a sum of money which, if received by them, they may apply in any way they think fit. It is a contract, not to repair the damage to the buildings, but to pay a sum not exceeding the sum insured or the money value of the injury. In my opinion, the contract of insurance is not of such a nature as to pass without apt words under a contract for sale of the thing insured.” [45]

The next argument proposed by the purchaser was that between the time of the contract being made and the conveyance being completed, the seller was a trustee of the property for the purchaser and as such, the seller is a trustee for the purchaser with regard to the money received for the property during this period of trusteeship. This argument did not find favour with the court either and Cotton L.J. held:

“An unpaid vendor is a trustee in a qualified sense only, and is so only because he has made a contact which a Court of Equity will give effect to by transferring the property sold to the purchaser, and so far as he is a trustee he is so only in respect of the property contracted to be sold. Of this the policy is not a part. A vendor is in no way a trustee for the purchaser of rents accruing before the time fixed for completion, and here the fire occurred and the right to recover the money accrued before the day fixed for completion. The argument that the money is received in respect of the property which is trust property is, in my opinion, fallacious.” [46]

Brett L.J. in this case concurred :

“... I venture to say that I doubt whether it is a true description of the relation between the parties to say that from the time of the making of the contract, or at any time, one is ever trustee for the other. They are only parties to a contract of sale and purchase of which a Court of Equity will under certain circumstances decree a specific performance. But even if the vendor was a trustee for the vendee, it does not seem to me at all to follow that anything under the contract of insurance would pass. As I have said, the contract of insurance is a mere personal contact for the payment of money. It is not a contract which runs with the land. If it were, there ought to be a decree that upon completion of the purchaser the policy be handed over. But that is not the law. The contract of insurance does not run with the land; it is a mere personal contract, and unless it is assigned no suit or action can be maintained upon it except between the original parties to it... [47]

“I therefore, with deference, think that the Plaintiffs here [purchaser] cannot recover from the Defendant [seller], on the ground that there was no relation of any kind or sort between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with regard to the policy, and therefore none with regard to any money received under the policy.” [48]

James L.J. in this case gave a dissenting judgment on this point and held that :

“... the relation between the vendor and the purchaser became, and was in law, as from the date of the contract and up to the completion of it, the relation of trustee and cestui que trust , and that the trustee received the insurance money by reason of and as the actual amount of the damage done to the trust property.” [49]

In Castellain v Preston and Others, [50] the defendants owned a piece of land and buildings which were covered by a fire insurance policy. The defendants entered into negotiations to sell the premises to their tenants. In the midst of these negotiations, a fire broke out which damaged a part of the buildings. By the time of the fire the contract of sale was signed, a deposit was paid but the contract was not completely performed as yet. The insurance company made payments to the defendants on the insurance policy for the fire. The tenants paid the full purchase price and proceeded with the slae despite the fire. The insurance company brings the present action.

Brett L.J. commented on the foundation of insurance law :

“The very foundation, in my opinion, of every rule which has been applied to insurance law is this, namely, that the contract of insurance contained in a marine or fire policy is a contract of indemnity, and of indemnity only, and that this contract means that the assured, in case of a loss against which the policy has been made, shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified. That is the fundamental principle of insurance, and if ever a proposition is brought forward which is at variance with it, that is to say, which either will prevent the assured from obtaining a full indemnity, or which will give to the assured more than a full indemnity, that proposition must certainly be wrong.” [51]

Cotton L.J. added :

“The policy is really a contract to indemnify the person insured for the loss which he has sustained in consequence of the peril insured against which has happened, and from that it follows, of course, that as it is only a contract of indemnity, it is only to pay that loss which the assured may have sustained by reason of the fire which has occurred. In order to ascertain what that loss is, everything must be taken into account which is received by and comes to the hand of the assured, and which diminishes the loss. It is only the amount of the loss, when it is considered as a contract of indemnity, which is to be paid after taking into account and estimating those benefits or sums of money which the assured may have received in diminution of the loss... [52]

Therefore the conclusion at which I have arrived is, that if the purchase-money has been paid in full, the insurance office will get back that which they have paid, on the ground that the subsequent payment of the price which had been before agreed upon, and the contract for payment of which was existing at the time, must be brought into account by the assured, because it diminishes the loss against which the insurance office merely undertook to indemnify them [53] .”

Mahinder Singh Sidhu observes :

“An assignment of the policy means a ‘change of interest’ i.e., somebody else is substituted for the original insured in the motor insurance contract. All motor policies can be validly assigned but the insurer’s prior consent is essential.” [54]

Mahinder Singh Sidhu also writes :

“A motor insurance contract is always personal in the sense that some human element is inevitably involved, and in a technical sense, the insurer’s decision to enter on the contract depends on the personal qualities of the insured and the insurer’s confidence in him. The insurers have the right to question and investigate the proposed insured and vary the terms of the contract. If an assignment takes place it is termed as a “novation”, since the assignment virtually creates a new contract with the assignee.

A valid assignment gives the assignee the right to sue and gives the insurance company a good legal discharge without the necessity of joining the assignor. Where there is a conditional sale of a car to the new purchaser, the ownership of the car still remains with the insured, and does not amount to any transfer of his insurable interest. But where there has been a complete sale and transfer of the vehicle and handing over of the policy documents to the purchaser, it does not create a valid assignment, though there is a transfer of interest of the subject matter of the insurance. The transfer of the insurable interest causes the policy to lapse, and the purchaser has no insurance cover if he drives the car and meets with an accident.” [55]

In Peters v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. [56] , the owner of a motor van sold the vehicle to another person and purportedly assigned the motor insurance policy for the van to the purchaser. After the sale, the purchaser was involved in an accident and attempted to make a claim to the insurance company based on the motor insurance policy purportedly assigned. The insurance company disputed the purchaser’s right to claim under the insurance policy issued to the seller of the van.

Sir Wilfred Greene M.R. in this case decided that:

“Assuming in his favour that there was an intention to assign the policy, the fundamental remains : Is this policy one which is capable of assignment? The judge held that it was not, and I am in entire agreement with that.” [57]

The effect of the motor insurance policy was that the insurance company undertook to indemnify the policyholder in the case of an accident while the car was driven by the policyholder or anyone else driving the vehicle with the policyholder’s consent or permission.

Sir Wilfred Greene M.R. explained the effect of deciding that such a policy was assignable:

“It appears to me as plain as anything can be that a contract of this kind is in its very nature not assignable. The effect of the assignment, if it were possible to assign, was ... that, from and after the assignment, the name of Mr. Pope, the assignee [the purchaser], would have taken the place of that of Mr. Coomber [the seller] in the policy, and the policy would have to be read as though Mr. Pope’s name were mentioned instead of Mr. Coomber’s. In other words, the effect of the assignment would be to impose upon the insurance company an obligation to indemnify a new assured, or persons ordered or permitted to drive by that new assured. That appears to be altering in toto the character of the risk under a policy of this kind. The risk that A.B. is going to incur liability by driving his motor car, or that persons authorised by A.B. are going to cause injury by driving his motor car, is one thing. The risk that C.D. will incur liability by driving a motor car, or that persons authorised by C.D. will incur liability through driving a motor car, is, or may be, a totally different thing.” [58]

One reason given by Sir Wilfred Greene M.R. for deciding that an insurance policy of this kind was not capable of assignment was that :

“The insurance company in this case, as in every case, make inquiries as to the driving record of the person proposing to take out a policy of insurance with them. The business reasons for that are obvious, because a man with a good record will be received at an ordinary rate of premium and a man with a bad record may not be received at all, or may be asked to pay a higher premium. The policy is, in a very true sense, one in which there is inherent a personal element of such a character as to make it, in my opinion, quite impossible to say that the policy is one assignable at the volition of the assured.” [59]

The second reason given by the judge as the basis of his judgement was that the according to the Road Traffic Act 1930 [60] in the United Kingdom, it is unlawful for anyone to use a motor vehicle or permit anyone else to use the motor vehicle unless that user or other person permitted by the user is covered by a motor insurance policy for the use of the motor vehicle. [61] Additionally under the statute, if a judgment is obtained in respect of a liability covered by the policy against any person insured by the policy, then the insurance company is generally liable to make the required payment to the person who has the benefit of the judgment. [62]

The purchaser of the car in this case argued that he was driving the car with the permission of the policyholder [63] and as such, should receive the same benefit of coverage in terms of the insurance policy. Based on this rationale, the purchaser argued that since judgment was obtained against him in respect of the accident and since he was covered by the policy, the insurance company should be liable under the judgment and make payments to the party who obtained the judgment. The court, however, held that :

“At the date when the accident took place, the entire property in this car was vested in Pope [the purchaser]. He had bought the car. On the sale of the car, the property passed to him ... The property, therefore, passed to the purchaser long before this accident took place. The circumstance that he had not paid the whole of the purchase price is irrelevant for that purpose, because that circumstance does not leave in the vendor, Mr. Coomber, any interest in the car. There is no vendor’s lien, or anything of that sort. The car had become the out-and-out property of Pope. When Pope was using that car, he was not using it by the permission of Coomber [the seller]. It is an entire misuse of language to say that. He was using it as owner, and by virtue of his rights as owner, and not by virtue of any permission of Coomber.” [64]

In Smith v Ralph, [65] the scenario was basically the same as above, namely, that the purchaser of a motor vehicle again tried to claim the coverage of the insurance policy issued to the seller of the motor vehicle on the basis that the purchaser was driving the motor vehicle with the permission or consent of the policyholder.

Lord Parker of Waddington C.J. in this case similarly held that the purchaser was not covered by the policy as the policyholder could not assign any rights in the policy when he no longer had any interest in the vehicle covered by the policy. In the words of the judge :

“Any permission or authority given by the policyholder ... could not extend beyond the time when he ceased to be a policyholder in the sense of having any insurable interest.” [66]

In Nanyang Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salbiah & Anor, [67] a car was bought on behalf of a company. The company then entered into negotiations to sell the car to the purchaser. The terms of the proposed sale in the written contract included the obligation of the purchaser to make an initial payment and thereafter to continue paying for the car in instalments. The parties varied this term by oral agreement when the purchaser did not make this initial payment in full by allowing him to make this initial payment in instalments. The car was involved in an accident and judgment was obtained against the driver of the car who was the purchaser. The insurance company disputed liability for the claim against them to honour the judgment obtained as they argued that the seller of the car no longer had any insured interest with the proposed sale of the car and as such, the insurance policy has lapsed.

Azmi C.J. in this case held:

“It is therefore quite clear in my view from the evidence, that the company intended to retain the property in the car until Abdul Karim [the purchaser] has paid in full the initial payment of $1,000 under the D.6 [the contract] when he could execute a hire-purchase agreement with a financial company. ...

For the above reason, I would therefore with respect, agree with the finding of the trial judge that the appellants [seller] had an insurable interest in the car on the date of the accident and the car was being driven by Abdul Karim with the permission of the insured.” [68]

In People’s Insurance Co. of Malaya Ltd. v Ho Ah Kum & Anor, [69] the driver of a van was sued by the estate of a deceased who was killed in an accident due to the negligent driving of this driver. The estate of the deceased obtained judgment against the driver of the van. The driver, it was alleged, was driving the van with the permission of the owner of the van who had an insurance policy on the van. The question that arose in this case was whether the driver was so driving with the permission of the owner or whether the owner of the van had sold the van to the driver and as such parted with possession of the van before the date of the accident.

The driver was actually an employee of the owner of the van who at the time of the accident was using returning from a delivery made on behalf of the employer in the course of his employment. The evidence showed that the owner told the driver that the ownership of the van would not be transferred unless and until the driver made full payment of the purchase price. The owner was aware that the reason the driver bought the van was to use the van in making these deliveries.

Wee Chong Jin C.J. in this case held on the facts that:

“In any event, having regard to the relationship between Foo [driver] and Yeo [owner] throughout the material times; to the purpose for which Foo agreed to purchase from Yeo the motor van; and most important of all to the uncontradicted evidence of Foo that when the accident occurred he was returning after delivering Yeo’s flour and there being no evidence to the contrary, I take the view that there is sufficient evidence on the record for me to find and I do find that at the time of the accident Foo was driving the van on the order of the insured.” [70]

In Tattersall v. Drysdale, [71] the driver of a car was involved in an accident and judgment was obtained against him. The driver had an insurance policy with the London & Edinburgh Insurance Company for a Standard Swallow Saloon car. This Standard car was sold to a company who was in turn selling the driver a Riley Saloon car belonging to the director of this company which was under a Lloyd’s Eclipse insurance Policy. The driver was in the process of having his insurance company, the London & Edinburgh Insurance Company, cover the Riley car and no longer cover the Standard car. However, this change was not made before the accident as yet. The question that arose was which insurance company was liable for the accident.

Goddard J. in this case held :

“As to the question of permission, I am clearly of opinion that he was driving with Gilling’s [the director of the company the Riley car was bought from] permission. ... The truth is that no bargain about insurance was ever made. Gilling, on handing over his car after the bargain had been made, wished the plaintiff [driver] to insure it and he was willing to do so, but he was allowed to drive it as he wished ...” [72]

Both insurance policies contained a clause that coverage is extended to indemnify a person driving the insured car with the assured’s permission provided that the driver is not entitled to indemnity under any other insurance policy. The next question that arose, as such, was whether the Riley car was covered by the insurance policy of the driver. The judge held that it did not. This insurance policy was stated to cover the Standard car which had been sold. The Riley car was not entered on this policy. The coverage was extended to the situation when the assured drove another car temporarily but it is the car stated in the policy which is the subject of the insurance. As such, this insurance policy in the name of the driver lapsed when the car the insurance policy was stated to cover, namely the Standard car, was sold.

The driver held to be driving the Riley car with the permission of the assured, namely the director of the company who owned this car with an insurance policy, the judge went on to direct that the insurance company of the director, namely, the Lloyd’s Eclipse insurance Policy, through the extension clause discussed above, covered the driver of the Riley car and as such, was liable on the judgment obtained for the accident.

In Roslan bin Abdullah v. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd, [73] there was a collision between 2 trucks. Judgment was obtained and the appellant then sought to claim against the insurance company who had issued an insurance policy on the respondent’s truck. The insurance company disputed liability as the judgment obtained was not entered against the assured as the assured was the previous owner of the truck and not the current owner, the respondent company.

Wan Suleiman F.J. [74] in this case, with regard to whether there was any assignment or novation of the insurance policy from the previous owner to the new owner, affirmed the following principles from the judgment of Goddard J. in Peters v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. [75]

Goddard J. (as he then was) held:

(a) when the vendor sold the car, the insurance policy automatically lapsed.

(b) at the time of the accident, the purchaser could not be said to be driving the car by the order or with the permission of the vendor, as the car was then the purchaser’s property.

(c) the insured is not entitled to assign his policy to a third party. An insurance policy is a contract of personal indemnity, and the insurer cannot be compelled to accept responsibility in respect of a third party who may be quite unknown to them.” [76]

Wan Suleiman F.J., with regard to whether the driver, as an employee of the current owner of the truck was driving with the permission of the previous owner of the truck, held :

“We are informed by counsel for the appellant that Wee & Wee Realty Sdn. Bhd. [the previous owner of the truck] and United Malaysia Co. Ltd. [the current owner of the truck] the second defendant in C.S. K.124/76 are sister companies. Be that as it may they are distinct entities. The respondents were no longer the owners of the truck and therefore there cannot be any question of them ordering or permitting the first defendant [employee of the current owner of the truck] in C.S. K.124/76 to drive it.” [77]

S. Santhana Dass writes :

“Life insurance seeks to reduce the financial uncertainties arising from the natural contingencies in old age and death and to ease the burden in the case of possible misfortunes - injury and sickness. The principal function of life insurance business is to furnish protection against the financial needs which may be caused by disability and death. It provides food, shelter and clothing, when illness, injury or death cuts off the income of the breadwinner.” [78]

In the book, Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance , it is written:

“Life policies are to be considered something more than a contract. They are treated as securities for money payable at an uncertain but future date which is bound to occur.” [79]

Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus writes :

“A practical definition might be that a life assurance contract is one whereby one party (the insurer) undertakes for a consideration (the premium) to pay money (the sum assured) to or for the benefit of the other party (the assured) upon the happening of a specified event, where the object of the assured is to provide a sum for himself or others at some future date, or for others in the event of his death.” [80]

Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus also write with regard to the assignment of life policies that :

“An assignment of a life policy is a document or action which is effective to transfer the ownership of the policy from one person to another. Assignments may be made for a variety of reasons, including:

- Sale of exchange;

- Gift or voluntary transfer;

- Settlement, transferring the policy to trustees to give effect to successive or contingent interests;

- Transfer to existing trustees of a settlement or to beneficiaries in pursuance of the trusts;

- Mortgage; transfer of mortgage; or reassignment on repayment;or

- Assignment to a trustee for the benefit of creditors.” [81]

Nik Ramlah Mahmood writes:

“In relation to life insurance, an assignment means the transfer of one’s interest in the policy to another. Such an assignment commonly happens when an insured under an own life policy uses the policy, which is a valuable piece of property, as security for a loan and assigns it to the creditor. This usually takes the form of a conditional assignment whereby the policy would be reassigned to the insured once he has paid all his debts. Banks and other credit-giving institutions which lend huge sums of money to individuals normally insist that the borrower takes out a policy on his life and assigns it to them as security for the loan.

A life policy can also be unconditionally or absolutely assigned either as a gift or under a contract of sale. Such an assignment is absolute and does not leave any residual rights with the assignor.” [82]

In Dalby v. The India and London Life-Assurance Company, [83] the Anchor Life-Assurance Company insured the life of his late Royal Highness, the Duke of Cambridge. This policy was effected by Wright on behalf of the company.

Parke B. stated in this case:

“The contract commonly called life-assurance, when properly considered, is a mere contract to pay a certain sum of money on the death of a person, in consideration of the due payment of a certain annuity for his life, - the amount of the annuity being calculated, in the first instance, according to the probable duration of the life; and when once fixed, it is constant and invariable. The stipulated amount of annuity is to be uniformly paid on one side, and the sum to be paid in the event of death is always (except when bonuses have been given by prosperous offices) the same, on the other. This species of insurance in no way resembles a contract of indemnity.

Policies of assurance against fire ands against marine risks, are both properly contracts of indemnity, - the insurer engaging to make good, within certain limited amounts, the losses sustained by the assured in their buildings, ships, and effects... [84]

... a contract of indemnity only. But that is not of the nature of what is termed an assurance for life; it really is what it is on the fact of it, - a contract to pay a certain sum in the event of death [85] .”

S. Santhana Dass points out that:

“An assignee under a life insurance contract can re-assign the policy to the original owner.” [86]

The Policies of Assurance Act 1867 [87] defines a life insurance policy as “... ‘any instrument by which the payment of moneys, by or out of the funds of an assurance company, on the happening of any contingency depending on the duration of human life, is assured or secured’. [88] ”

The Policies of Assurance Act 1867 provides that an assignee can sue in his own name if [89] :

(i) the assignee has the right in equity to receive and the right to give a valid discharge to the assurance company for the policy money, that is, it was a precondition that the assignee be beneficially entitled to the policy money or entitled to receive the policy money as a trustee or mortgagee at the time of the claim;

(ii) the assignee has obtained an assignment, either by endorsement on the policy or by separate instrument, in the words or to the effect set forth in the Schedule to this Act; and

(iii) written notice of the assignment had been given to the insurance company.

Cotton L.J. in the case In re Turcan [90] commented :

“Before the Act of 1867 [91] (30 & 31 Vict. C. 144) a policy could not be assigned at law, but now it can ...” [92]

Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 [93] states :

“Any absolute assignment, by writing, under the hand of the assignor, not purporting to be by way of charge only, of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim the debt or chose in action, shall be, and be deemed to have been, effectual in law, subject to all equities which would have been entitled to priority over the right of the assignee under the law as it existed in the State before the date of the coming into force of this Act [94] , to pass and transfer the legal right to the debt or chose in action, from the date of the notice, and all legal and other remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge for the same, without the concurrence of the assignor.”

S. Santhana Dass has summarised the requirements under section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 in order to effect a legal assignment of a life insurance policy as follows :

“The requirements for an absolute assignment of a life policy are as follows:-

(a) the assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor (the insured);

(b) it must be absolute and not by way of charge only; and

S. Santhana Dass goes on to explain:

“The common practice amongst insurers with respect to assignments (be it under the Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 or the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 (U.K.) can be summarised as follows:-

(i) An assignment should be in writing and a life policy can be assigned absolutely or conditionally.

(ii) The written notice of assignment must be sent to the Head Office or the Principal Office of the insurer.

(iii) Upon receipt of the assignment notice the insurer registers each notice.

(iv) If there is no written notice given to the insurer and the insurer has made payment to a person other than the assignee, the insurers shall not be liable to the assignee thereafter. The assignee cannot sue the insurer for recovery of any benefit under the policy unless a notice of assignment has been sent to the insurer.

(v) An assignment can be done by effecting an endorsement and attaching it to the back of the policy. Otherwise it is effected by a separate deed signed by all parties concerned i.e. the assignor, assignee and the insurer.

(vi) If there is more than one assignment, the priority of claims by the assignor will depend upon the priority in the date of receipt of the notice by the insurer. Thus position has now been altered by Section 168(2) of the Insurance Act 1996 where priority is based on the date of the assignment rather than date of the notice.” [96]

Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus writes:

“Where there has not been a legal assignment but the assignee has given consideration , equity will (subject to the riles on priority) assist him to perfect his title against third parties, even though he may not have obtained formal assignment.

If, however, a voluntary assignee seeks the support of equity, he will succeed only where:

(1) the assignment is complete between assignor and assignee, ie everything necessary has been done to make a present transfer and render the assignment binding; or

(2) the assignor has constituted himself as trustee for the assignee.” [97]

Roy Hodgin writes :

“Assignment can be made in equity ... commonly, under the Policies of Assurance Act 1867, which requires that notice of such assignment be given in writing to the insurer. Under the 1867 Act, the assignment may be made either by an endorsement on the policy or by a separate document using the wording set out in the Schedule to the Act.” [98]

Cohen L.J. in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Electric and Musical Industries, Ltd. [99] explained :

“It is quite true that as a matter of law there is no special form required to constitute an equitable assignment. Whether or not what has been done in any particular transaction amounts to an equitable assignment is a matter of inference from the facts and documents concerned ...” [100]

“There is no specific method of effecting an equitable assignment of a life policy. The only important requirement is that there must be a clear indication that the object of the transaction is to transfer the benefits in the policy from one party to another. No written document is necessary. A common way of effecting an equitable assignment is by the assignor depositing the policy of insurance with the assignee. An equitable assignee cannot enforce his rights directly against the insurer in his own name, he must either compel the assignor to sue on his behalf or sue the assignor and join the insurer to the action. The equitable assignee is thus not in a position to give a legal disharge to the insurer.” [101]

Tan Lee Meng writes:

“For the assignor to claim under the policy, the assignment must be complete.” [102]

In the case In re Williams [103] , an owner of an insurance policy paid the insurance premiums until his death. The court had to construe a purported assignment of the policy to his housekeeper through the following signed endorsement:

“’I authorise Ada Maud Ball, my housekeeper and no other person to draw this insurance in the event of my predeceasing her this being my sole desire and intention at time of taking this policy out and this is my signature.’” [104]

Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. held:

“According to my construction it is not an assignment at all. The question whether in the circumstances there is a voluntary gift always involves the consideration not whether the donor might have given the property, but what is the form in which he has purported to give it. Take the case of shares in a limited company which are only transferable by deed, or the case of Consols which are only transferable at the Bank of England; it is quite clear that a mere letter not under seal in either of these cases purporting to assign the property would not have been complete, the donor would not have done all he could to perfect it, and the intended gift would have failed. Of course if there had been valuable consideration for the assignment the position would have been different.” [105]

Warrington L.J. in this case agreed:

“The assignee in the present case is a volunteer, and she claims to have received in the assignor’s lifetime the gift of a certain chose in action, namely, a policy of insurance, the amount secured by which is in its nature only to be paid on the death of the assured. It is a policy on the assignor’s own life. Claiming as she does as a volunteer and alleging that the assignor made this gift to her, she can only succeed if she can show that the assignor did everything which according to the nature of the property comprised in the assignment was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the assignment binding upon him. ...

The question turns largely if not entirely on the construction of the document. Of course the mere form of words is immaterial if the assignor has used any form of words which expressed a final and settled intention to transfer the property to the assignee there and then. That would be sufficient. He need not use the word “give” or “assign” or any particular words.” [106]

Warrington L.J. construed the words of the endorsement and came to the conclusion that it merely created a revocable authority to receive the policy money after the assignor’s death which was a nullity as the authority would be revoked by the assignor’s death [107] . Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. similarly construed the endorsement as either a mere: [108]

• power of attorney, though not under seal, authorising the person named to receive the money which power becomes inoperative on the death of the person conferring it; or

• mandate which ceased to be operative at death.

In Newman v. Newman, [109] section 3 of the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 was construed. This section states:

“No assignment made after the passing of this Act of a policy of life assurance shall confer on the assignee therein named, his executors, administrators, or assigns, any right to sue for the amount of such policy, or the moneys assured or secured thereby, until a written notice of the date and purport of such assignment has been given to the assurance company liable under such policy at its principal place of business for the time being; and the date on which such notice was received shall regulate the priority of all claims under any assignment; and a payment bona fide made in respect of any policy by any assurance company before the date on which such notice was received shall be as valid against the assignee giving such notice as if this Act had not been passed.” [110]

North J. in this case interpreted this section in the following manner:

“That Act was passed in order to avoid the necessity of joining the assignor of the policy in actions against the insurance office, and it provides that if a certain notice is given to the office then the assignee may sue without joining the assignor. Then these words occur ‘And the date on which such notice shall be received shall regulate the priority of all claims under any assignment.’ It was contended that these words went much further than was necessary for the protection of the insurance office, and affected the rights of the parties inter se . ... In my opinion that is not the meaning of the statute, which was not intended to give a simpler remedy against an insurance office, and also to give facilities to insurance offices in settling claims by enabling them to recognise as the first claim the claim of the person who first gave such notice as required by the statute. It was not intended in my opinion to enact that a person who had advanced money upon a second charge without notice of the first, and made subject to it, should be giving statutory notice of the office exclude the person who had the prior incumbrance.” [111]

In Spencer v. Clarke [112] , a life insurance policy was used as security for two separate loans from separate parties. The contention was then which party had priority in terms of the security.

Hall, V.C. held:

“I am of the opinion that as between the Plaintiffs [the second creditor] in this action and the Defendant Tranter [the first creditor], the Defendant Tranter is entitled to priority as to the policy in the Westminster and General Life Assurance Association . That policy was deposited with him by way of equitable security. He is first in point of time, and therefore first as regards his security.” [113]

The first creditor then contended that he obtained priority by giving notice to the insurance office of his claim first in accordance with the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 . However, Hall V.C. held on this point that :

“In order to bring the case within the statute, there must, according to the plain words of the statute and the explanatory form of assignment given in the schedule, be an assignment, and an agreement to assign upon request is not an assignment.” [11]

“In essence, whether there has been a valid assignment under the provisions of the Policies of Assurance Act or section 4(6) of the Civil Law Act, all claims to priority amongst the assignees and encumbrances of a policy are dealt with on the basis that all claimants are equitable assignees so long as the proceeds of a policy are with the insurers or have been paid into court. The priority of equitable assignment is dependent on the date of assignment and the fact that there has been notice of prior equities does not affect the position. However, if X is an equitable assignee for value and Y is the holder of a prior equity, X can claim priority over Y if he has no actual or constructive notice of the earlier assignment and if he has given formal notice to the insurers of the assignment before the insurers have come to know of Y’s interest or if X has been misled by Y into taking the assignment or if Y has by his negligence contributed to the creation of the assignment to X.” [115]

Robert M. Merkin writes with regard to priorities of assignments:

“... a number of basic principles may be stated. First, the general equitable rule is that assignments rank in priority in order of their date of creation, but this is subject to the further rule that, where one or more assignees have given notice to the insurer, priority is determined by the date of notice. Secondly, the giving of notice to the insurer will obtain priority only for an assignee, whether legal or equitable, who was unaware of earlier assignments at the date of his own assignment. Knowledge for these purposes may be actual or constructive; the fact, for example, that the assured cannot deposit the policy with the assignee has been held [116] to put him on notice that it may have been deposited by way of assignment earlier. ... Thirdly, it is possible to have a legal assignment only by the giving of notice to the insurer.” [117]

S. Santhana Dass points out that :

“This common law position has been altered by Section 168(2) of the Insurance Act 1996 ... Notice of assignment to the insurers are no more relevant for the purpose of determining priority which puts the insurer in a more difficult position. Do they have to ensure that there are no prior assignment before paying to an assignee? It would be impractical to impose such a duty on the insurers because they would have no means of getting such information. As long as they pay to the assignee, whose assignment they had notice, they would be free of liability in respect of any claim, provided they have no knowledge of any earlier assignment. It may be prudent for insurers to include in their standard assignment form, a declaration by the insured that he has not created any prior assignment in respect of the policy at the time of execution of the assignment.” [118]

Section 168(2) of the Malaysian Insurance Act 1996 [119] provides :

“Where more than one person are entitled under the security or the assignment, the respective rights of the persons entitled under the security or the assignment shall be in the order of priority according to the priority of the date on which the security or the assignment was created, both security and assignment being treated as one class for this purpose.”

7.1 Assignment of Insurance Policies

Francis Tierney and Paul Braithwaite writes:

“An insurance policy is a contract under which the insured has defined rights and obligations. An assignment of an insurance policy may be defined as follows:

An assignment of an insurance policy by an insured is the transfer of the rights and obligations of the insured under the policy to another who then becomes the insured in place of the original insured.” [120]

Ray Hodgin writes:

“Assignment of insurance policies has an important role in commercial life. A common example is where a mortgagee requires the mortgagor to effect a life policy to cover the extent of the loan should the mortgagor die before the loan is repaid. The policy is then assigned to the mortgagee [121] .”

Roy Hodgin points out the “... desire of the courts to make the policy assignable and therefore as flexible as possible ...” [122] In order to illustrate this point, this author discusses the United States case of Grigsby v Russell [123] where a life policy was taken out by someone on his own life. This person paid two premiums and no more as he required the money for medical care. This person assigned the policy to someone else for value and the assignee continued to pay the premiums. Upon the assignor’s death, the question that arose was whether the insurance company should pay the proceeds to the assignor’s estate or the assignee. The Supreme Court of the United Stated held that the proceeds should be paid to the assignee. Mr. Justice Holmes in this case commented:

“Of course, the ground suggested for denying the validity of an assignment for a person having no interest in the life insured is the public policy that refuses to allow insurance to be taken out by such persons in the first place ... the ground for the objection to life insurance without interest in the earlier English cases was not the temptation to murder but the fact that such wagers came to be regarded as a mischievous kind of gaming ... On the other hand, life insurance has become in our days one of the best recognised forms of investment and self-compelled savings. So far as reasonable safety permits, it is desirable to give to life policies the ordinary characteristics of property ... To deny the right to sell except to persons having such an interest is to diminish appreciably the value of the contract in the owner’s hands.”

This indication of the attitude of the American courts as quoted by an English writer is noteworthy. However, in Malaysia, the courts are bound by the beneficiary of a life policy proving that he/she has an insurable interest in the life insured under section 152 of the Insurance Act 1996. [124]

“For a valid assignment of personal contracts such as contracts of fire insurance and liability insurance, the insurer’s consent is required... [125]

To be valid, an assignment by the insured of a non-life policy must be contemporaneous with an assignment of the subject matter of insurance to the assignee. The insured will not be in a position to assign the policy at a later date as he will no longer have an insurable interest in the property, in respect of which the policy was issued [126] . ...

An assignor of a life policy, which is a valuable chose in action, may effect a legal assignment of his policy by virtue of the provisions of the Policies of Assurance Act [127] , which only concerns the assignment of life policies, or by virtue of the provisions of section 4(6) of the Civil Law Act [128] , which concerns the assignment of all choses in action including life policies [129] .”

S. Santhana Dass writes:

“’Choses in action’ or ‘things in action’ are assignable.

Assignment of chose in action take places when the liabilities imposed or the rights acquired under a contract between A and B are transferred to C who is not a party to the original contract.

The expression ‘chose in action’ or ‘thing in action’, in the literal sense, means a thing recoverable by suit or action in law. ...

Rights under a contract of insurance are choses in action.” [130]

As such, it would seem that with regard to property and motor insurance, the assignment or sale of the subject matter of the insurance is insufficient to transfer the insurance policy as well. The insurance company’s consent is required before the policy will change hands. In order for the insured or original policy holder to effect a valid assignment, the insurance company’s consent and resulting assignment of the insurance policy must be contemporaneous with the assignment or sale of the subject matter since once the assignment or sale of the subject matter is complete, the insured no longer has any insurable interest in the subject matter of the insurance and as such, no more insurable interest in the policy to assign.

Nik Ramlah Mahmood explains:

“The contract of insurance itself can only be assigned with the consent of the insurer. This amounts to the substitution of a new contract for the old - a novation - and is allowed under the Contracts Act 1950 [131] . Novation results in the formation of a new contract between the insurer and the assignee and the latter is subject to all the terms and conditions of the new contract and he effectively replaces the assignor as the insured under the policy.” [132]

The assignment of life insurance policies may be effected by the insured through a legal assignment, either under the Policies of Assurance Act 1867 [133] or section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 .

7.2 Assignment of the Proceeds of Insurance Policies

“The proceeds of a policy may be assigned either in equity or at law in accordance with the provisions of section 4(6) of the Civil Law Act [134] . The insured’s right to the proceeds of a policy is a valuable chose in action and it may be assigned either before or after the occurrence of a loss. For an assignment of the proceeds of a policy, which is distinct from an assignment of the contract or policy of insurance, the consent of the insurer is not required.”

In the case of an equitable assignment of the proceeds of the policy, an action to recover the said proceeds must be brought in the name of the insured.

Where the assignor has effected a legal assignment of the proceeds of the policy in accordance with the requirements of section 4(6) of the Civil Law Act, the assignee may sue in his own name. The assignment must be an absolute assignment in writing under the assignor’s hand and express notice of such assignment must be given in writing to the insurers.

The assignee of the proceeds of the policy cannot acquire rights which are superior to those of the assignor. It follows that all the defences which could have been raised by the insurer against the assignor are equally applicable against the assignee. Thus, the insurers may avoid liability on account of the assignor’s misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Furthermore, all terms which are conditions precedent to the insurer’s liability must be complied with and the insurer may avoid liability to the assignee of the proceeds of a policy on the ground of the assignor’s failure to comply with a condition precedent. For instance, in Re Carr & Sun Fire Insurance Co., [135] the insured’s failure to provide the insurer with proof of loss within the time stipulated under the terms of the policy precluded the trustee in bankruptcy from recovering the proceeds of the policy.” [136]

7.3 Assignment of the Subject Matter of Insurance Policies

E. R. Hardy Ivamy writes:

“Before the assignee of the subject-matter can in his own name enforce the contract contained in the policy, it is necessary that the policy should be validly assigned to him... [137]

On the completion of the assignment, the rights and duties of the original assured devolve on the assignee, who becomes, to all intents and purposes, the assured under the policy which he may accordingly enforce in his own name [138] .”

“The question of an assignment of the subject matter of insurance arises when the insured property has been sold or otherwise disposed of by the insured. It does not arise in the case of life and personal accident policies because the subject matter of such policies is unassignable.

An insured who has voluntarily and completely given up his interest in the subject matter of the insurance ceases to have an insurable interest in the insured property. Such an insured can no longer make a claim under the policy with respect to the property which has been given up as he will not be in a position to suffer any loss with regard to the property.” [139]

7.4 Assignment by Operation of Law

The case of Thomas v. National Farmer’s Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd. [140] involved the property in hay and straw on a farm being passed from a tenant to a landlord by virtue of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 when the landlord served a notice to quit on his tenant. Diplock J. in this case explained:

“Where property passes automatically as the result of statutory provisions when certain circumstances arise, it seems to me that this is a passing of property by operation of law.” [141]

“The insured’s interest in the policy or in the subject matter of interest may be assigned by operation of law. For instance, such an assignment will occur in the event of the death or bankruptcy of the insured.

As far as the insured’s interest in the insured property is concerned, such interest vests in the insured’s personal representative in the event of the insured’s death. On the other hand, in the event of the bankruptcy of the insured, the insured’s interest in the insured property vests in the Official Assignee. In either of these situations, the continued effectiveness of the policy is not in doubt.

Where a loss occurs before an assignment by operation of law, the insured’s personal representatives or trustee in bankruptcy, as the case may be, has the right to claim against the insurers. The position is more complicated where a loss occurs after an assignment by operation of law and after the property has been distributed to those who are entitled to the same. Most policies avoid such complications by providing that the insurer shall indemnify the insured and all other persons to whom his interest in the insured property may pass by means of a will or by operation of law.” [142]

Myint Soe writes :

“The general principle is that on death and bankruptcy, both the subject matter insured and the policy itself pass to the personal representatives or the Official Assignee, as the case may be.

However, the personal representatives or the Official Assignee cannot have a better title than the deceased or the bankrupt. The claim would be liable to be defeated by any non-disclosure or misrepresentation or breach of condition on the part of the insured before the assignment takes effect.” [143]

“Any person who takes an insurance policy should find out whether there is any special clause prohibiting or restricting assignment. Some policies may prohibit the assignment of the subject matter during the currency of the policy. Some policies may prohibit assignment otherwise than by will or operation of law.” [144]

Kenneth Sutton writes :

“A policy of insurance is or evidences a contract and is therefore, like any other agreement, subject to the general law of contract as developed by the common law and modified by statute. In addition, special rules have been developed in relation to insurance contracts. Thus, they are the most common example of that special class of contract known as contracts uberrimae fidei, that is, of utmost good faith, and hence there are special rules in relation to non-disclosure, misrepresentation and the like in respect of them.” [145]

The legal standing of assignments in the field of insurance, thus, is not a straightforward question to answer. It depends on what is being assigned and how assignments are conducted in the various branches of insurance law.

In practical terms, insurance companies themselves may not be certain of the legal stand of various claimants who clamour at their doors demanding payment on insurance claims arising out of purported assignments. Insurance companies, therefore, may demand these eager voices to prove the validity of their claims in court. The insurance company then, will make payment on the claims as directed by the superior wisdom and authority of the court of law. As Irwin M. Taylor writes:

“Insurance companies are frequently presented with conflicting claims advanced by the original beneficiary and a subsequently designated beneficiary or assignee. Rather than pay to either one at its peril, it is the practice of insurance companies to bring both claimants into a law suit, deposit the money into court and leave the two claimants to fight the matter out themselves.” [146]

A. Vijayalakshmi Venugopal*

[*] Advocate & Solicitor

High Court of Malaya

[1] A. A. Tarr, Kwai-Lian Liew & W. Holligan, Australian Insurance Law , Second Edition, The Law Book Company Limited, 1991, at page 1.

[2] Namely marine, life and fire insurance.

[3] John Lowry & Philip Rawlings, Insurance Law: Doctrines and Principles , Hart Publishing (U.S.A), 1999, at page 3.

[4] Professor K. S. N. Murthy & K. V. S. Sarma, Modern Law of Insurance in India , N. M. Tripathi Private Limited (Bombay, India), 1995, at page 3.

[5] John Birds & Norma J. Hird, Birds’ Modern Insurance Law , Fifth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (London), 2001, at page 13.

[6] (1881) 18 Ch.D 1.

[7] Ibid 9-10.

[8] Principles of Insurance Law , Fifth Edition, Butterworths Asia, 2000, at page 1193.

[9] R. C. Kohli, An Introduction to Insurance Practice and Principles in Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore Insurance Training Centre, 1982, at page 77.

[10] William Brandt’s Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (1905) A.C. 454 (House of Lords) per Lord Macnaghten, at page 462.

[11] David Norwood & John P. Weir, Norwood on Life Insurance Law in Canada , Second Edition, Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, 1993, at page 258.

[12] Malcolm A. Clarke, The Law of Insurance Contracts , Second Edition, Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd, 1994, at page 170.

[13] Act 553.

[14] Act 67 (revised 1972).

[15] This Act is declared to come into force on 7 April 1956.

[16] 30 and 31 Victoria, chapter 144.

[17] 15 and 16 Geo. V., chapter 20.

[18] A ‘chose in action’ has been defined by Erin Goh, Valerie Low and Low Kee Yang (editor) in Butterworths Law for Business Series - Insurance Law , Butterworths Asia, 2001, at page 191 in the following manner, “A chose in action is the right to demand payment of a sum of money or to recover damages under a contract.”

[19] Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia , Butterworths, 1992, at pages 207-208.

[20] [1984] 1 MLJ 260 (Federal Court).

[21] Quoted and discussed above.

[22] [1984] 1 MLJ 260 (Federal Court), at page 264.

[23] 6 Edw 7, c. 41 (United Kingdom).

[24] Halsbury’s Statutes of England and Wales, Fourth Edition, Volume 22, 2000 Reissue, Butterworths (London), 2000, at page 42.

[25] Ibid 43.

[26] Robert Merkin (Editor), Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance , Sixth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (London), 1990, at pages 405-406.

[27] Halsbury’s Statutes of England and Wales, Fourth Edition, Volume 22, 2000 Reissue, Butterworths (London), 2000, at page 25.

[28] Michael Parkington, Nicholas Leigh-Jones, Andrew Longmore & John Birds (Editors), Macgillivray & Parkington on Insurance Law - relating to all risks other than marine, Eighth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (London), 1988, at pages 714-715.

[29] The cases quoted in support of this proposition in this book, at page 714 are Rayner v. Preston (1881) 18 Ch. D. 1, at page 7 per Cotton L,J, Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation (1895) 11 TLR 476, Robson v. Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Co. (1900) The Times, June 23, Rogerson v. Scottish Automobile and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1931) 48 TLR 17, Tattersall v. Drysdale [1935] 2 K.B. 174 and Boss and Hansford v. Kingston [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 431.

[30] The case quoted in support of this proposition, at page 714 of this book is Forbes & Co. v. Border Counties Fire Office (1873) 11 Macph. 278.

[31] The case quoted in support of this proposition in this book, at page 714 is Collingridge v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation (1877) 3 QBD 173.

[32] The cases quoted in support of this proposition in this book, at page 715 are Castellain v. Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380, at page 385 per Brett L.J. and A.R. Williams Machinery Co. v. British Crown Assurance Corporation Ltd . (1921) BCR 481.

[33] The case quoted in support of this proposition in this book, at page 715 is the judgment of Bowen L.J. in Castellain v. Preston (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 380, at pages 401 and 405. This author also comments that once the vendor is fully paid, however, his interest will cease and he will be unable to recover as was held in Bank of New South Wales v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. (1881) 2 NSWLR 239.

[34] Digby C. Jess, The Insurance of Commercial Risks Law and Practice , Second Edition, Butterworths (London), 1993, at page 15.

[35] (1875) LR 10 QB 249.

[36] (1875) LR 10 QB 249, at page 253.

[37] (1743) 1 Wils. KB 10; 95 ER 463.

[38] (1743) 1 Wils. KB 10, at page 10; 95 ER 463, at page 463.

[39] (1895) 11 TLR 476 (High Court).

[40] Id 476.

[41] (1877) 3 QBD 173.

[42] Ibid 176-177.

[43] Ibid 177.

[44] (1881) 18 Ch.D 1.

[45] Ibid 6.

[46] Ibid 6-7.

[47] (1881) 18 Ch.D 1, at page 11.

[48] Ibid 12.

[49] Ibid 16.

[50] (1883) 11 QBD 380 (Court of Appeal).

[51] (1883) 11 QBD 380 (Court of Appeal), at page 386.

[52] Ibid 393.

[53] Ibid 396-397.

[54] Mahinder Singh Sidhu, Casebook on Motor Insurance Law in Malaysia and Singapore - with synopsis and principles, International Law Book Services, 1995, at page 25.

[55] Ibid 31.

[56] [1938] 2 All ER 267 (Court of Appeal).

[57] Ibid 269.

[58] Ibid 269-270.

[59] Ibid 270.

[60] The equivalent Act in Malaysia is the Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333).

[61] Refer to section 35 of the United Kingdom Act and section 90 of the Malaysian Act.

[62] Refer to section 10 of the United Kingdom Act and section 91 of the Malaysian Act.

[63] Who was the seller of the car.

[64] [1938] 2 All ER 267 (Court of Appeal), at pages 270-271.

[65] [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 439 (High Court).

[66] [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 439 (High Court), at page 440.

[67] [1967] 1 MLJ 94 (Federal Court).

[68] Ibid 96.

[69] [1967] 2 MLJ 134 (Federal Court).

[70] Ibid 136.

[71] [1935] 2 KB 174.

[72] Ibid 178.

[73] [1981] 2 MLJ 324 (Federal Court).

[74] This judgment was delivered by Lee Hun Hoe C.J. (Borneo).

[75] [1937] 4 All ER 628 (High Court). Discussed above is the Court of Appeal judgment.

[76] [1981] 2 MLJ 324 (Federal Court), at page 325.

[77] Ibid 325.

[78] S. Santhana Dass, Law of Life Insurance in Malaysia , Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd, 2000, at page 1.

[79] Robert Merkin (Editor), Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance, Sixth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (London), 1990, at page 178.

[80] Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus, Houseman and Davies Law of Life Assurance , Eleventh Edition, Butterworths (London), 1994, at page 1.

[81] Ibid 262

[82] Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia , Butterworths, 1992, at page 206.

[83] (1854) 15 CB 365; 139 ER 465.

[84] Ibid page 387; 139 ER 465, at page 474.

[85] (1854) 15 C.B. 365, at page 391; 139 E.R. 465, at page 476.

[86] S. Santhana Dass, Law of Life Insurance in Malaysia , Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd, 2000, at page 287.

[87] An Act in the United Kingdom.

[88] Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus, Houseman and Davies Law of Life Assurance , Eleventh Edition, Butterworths (London), 1994, at page 263.

[90] (1888) 40 Ch.D 5.

[91] The Policies of Assurance Act 1867.

[92] (1888) 40 Ch.D 5, at page 10.

[93] Act 56.

[94] This Act came into force in West Malaysia on 7 April 1956.

[95] S. Santhana Dass, Law of Life Insurance in Malaysia , Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd, 2000, at page 276.

[96] Ibid 281-282.

[97] Robert J. Surridge, Sara Forrest, Noleen Dignan, Alison Broadberry & Duncan Backus, Houseman and Davies Law of Life Assurance , Eleventh Edition, Butterworths (London), 1994, at page 265.

[98] Ray Hodgin, Insurance Law - Text and Materials , Cavendish Publishing Limited (United Kingdom), 1998, at page 63.

[99] [1949] 1 All ER 120 (Court of Appeal).

[100] Ibid 126.

[101] Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia , Butterworths, 1992, at pages 206-207.

[102] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at page 415.

[103] (1917) 1 Ch.D 1 (Court of Appeal).

[104] Ibid 2.

[105] Ibid 7.

[106] Ibid 8.

[107] Ibid 8.

[108] Ibid 7.

[109] (1885) 28 Ch.D 674.

[110] Poh Chu Chai, Principles of Insurance Law , Fifth Edition, Butterworths Asia, 2000, at page 1208.

[111] (1885) 28 Ch.D 674, at pages 680 and 681.

[112] (1878) 9 Ch.D 137.

[113] Ibid 140.

[114] Ibid 141.

[115] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at page 417.

[116] The authority given in this book, at page D.1.2-04, for this proposition is the case of Re Weniger’s Policy (1910) 2 Ch.D 291.

[117] Robert M. Merkin, Kluwer’s Insurance Contract Law , Croner CCH, 2000, at page D.1.2-04.

[118] S. Santhana Dass, Law of Life Insurance in Malaysia , Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd, 2000, at page 284.

[119] Act 553.

[120] Francis Tierney & Paul Braithwaite, A Guide to Effective Insurance , Second Edition, Butterworths Canada Ltd., 1992, at page 13.

[121] Ray Hodgin, Insurance Law - Text and Materials , Cavendish Publishing Limited (United Kingdom), 1998, at page 63.

[122] Ibid .

[123] 222 US 149 (1911).

[124] Act 553.

[125] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at page 411

[126] Ibid 413.

[127] According to footnote 27, at page 413 of this book, prior to the coming into force of the English Policies of Assurance Act 1867, a life policy could only be assigned in equity and not through a legal assignment. The equitable assignee could only sue by

having the assignor of the policy joined as a party to the action.

[128] The equivalent Malaysian provision is section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956

[129] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at page 413.

[130] S. Santhana Dass, Law of Life Insurance in Malaysia , Alpha Sigma Sdn Bhd, 2000, at page 274

[131] Nik Ramlah Mahmood, at page 209, in footnote number 12 clarifies that she is referring to section 63 of the Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136) in this context which states, “If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed.”

[132] Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia , Butterworths, 1992, at page 209.

[133] If that applies in Malaysia as discussed by Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia , Butterworths, 1992, at pages 207-208.

[134] The equivalent Malaysian provision is section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 65).

[135] (1897) 13 TLR 186.

[136] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at pages 410-411

[137] E. R. Hardy Ivamy, General Principles of Insurance Law , Sixth Edition, Butterworths (London), 1993, at page 348.

[138] Ibid 353.

[139] Tan Lee Meng, Insurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at page 407.

[140] [1961] 1 WLR 386.

[141] [1961] 1 WLR 386, at page 392.

[142] Tan Lee Meng, Inssurance Law in Singapore , Second Edition, Butterworths Asia, 1997, at pages 430-431.

[143] Myint Soe, The Insurance Law of Malaysia , Quins Pte. Ltd., 1979, at page 62.

[144] Ibid .

[145] Kenneth Sutton, Insurance Law in Australia , Third Edition, LBC Information Services, 1999, at pages 11-12.

Assignment of Life Insurance Policy

Assignment of a Life Insurance Policy simply means transfer of rights from one person to another. The policyholder can transfer the rights of his insurance policy to another for various reasons and this process is called Assignment.

The person who assigns the policy, i.e. transfers the rights, is called the Assignor and the one to whom the policy has been assigned, i.e. the person to whom the policy rights have been transferred is called the Assignee. Once the rights have been transferred to the Assignee, the rights of the Assignor stands cancelled and the Assignee becomes the owner of the policy.

here are 2 types of Assignment:

Absolute Assignment – This means complete Transfer of Rights from the Assignor to the Assignee, without any further conditions applicable.
Conditional Assignment – This means that the Transfer of Rights will happen from the Assignor to the Assignee subject to certain conditions. If the conditions are fulfilled then only the Policy will get transferred from the Assignor to the Assignee.

Let’s take an example:

Rahul owns 2 Life Insurance policies of value Rs 2 lakhs and Rs 5 lakhs respectively. He would like to gift one policy of Rs 2 lakhs to his best friend Ajay. In that case, he would like to absolutely assign the policy in his name such that the death or maturity proceeds are directly paid to him. Thus, after the assignment, Ajay becomes the absolute owner of the policy. If he wishes, he may again transfer it to someone else for any other reason. This type of Assignment is called Absolute Assignment.

Now, Rahul needed to take a loan for Rs 5 lakhs. So, he thought of doing so against the other policy that he owned for Rs 5 lakhs. To take a loan from ABC bank, he needed to conditionally assign the policy to that Bank and then the bank would be able to pay out the loan money to him. If Rahul failed to repay the loan, then the bank would surrender the policy and get their money back.

Once Rahul’s loan is completely repaid, then the policy would again come back to him. In case, Rahul died before completely repaying the loan, then also the bank can surrender the policy to get their money back. This type of Assignment is called Conditional Assignment.

Sachin Telawane is a Content Manager and writes on various aspects of the Insurance industry. His enlightening insights on the insurance industry has guided the readers to make informed decisions in the course of purchasing insurance plans.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Assignment of Benefits May Be Dead in Ohio

A recent federal appellate court case seems to have closed any hope on assignment of benefits in Ohio. 1 The case involved a post-loss assignment of insurance claims benefits to a body shop to do repairs. The holding upheld anti-assignment language in the policy:

Under Ohio law, an assignment of contract rights is generally invalid when ‘there is clear contractual language prohibiting assignment.’ Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. , 861 N.E.2d 121, 128 (Ohio 2006) . Here, the insurance contracts expressly barred any assignment absent State Farm’s consent and State Farm did not consent to any of the assignments. Blue Ash counters that the Pilkington court chose not to enforce the anti-assignment clause there, and contends that we should do the same here. But Pilkington stands apart from this case: there, the assignee was a successor-in-interest to a predecessor company that had suffered a fixed loss before the succession and assignment. Here, by contrast, the insureds purported to assign their rights to a third party—Blue Ash—and the amounts of their losses are disputed. Suffice it to say that Pilkington’s facts are distinguishable. The terms of the insurance contracts govern here.

Contractors in Ohio should carefully read the insurance policy to see if there is an anti-assignment clause. If one exists and there is a dispute about the amount owing, the policyholder will have to bring a lawsuit or otherwise force the issue of the amount owed for the repairs.

Thought For The Day

Never spend your money before you have earned it. —Thomas Jefferson ___________________________________ 1 Blue Ash Auto Body, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , No. 21-3365, 2021 WL 5755632 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) .

What Is Bad Faith Claims Handling? What Happens If the Insurer Changes Its Position to “No More Is Owed?”

Public adjuster sits at a computer smiling and talking to a couple

What Is a Public Adjuster and When Do You Need One?

Misrepresentation In The Application– Incorrect Answers About Prior Losses And Rental Use Doom Recovery

We’re ready to serve you.

Our firm represents residential, commercial and government entities in seeking timely, fair and proper compensation. We also support adjusters and contractors and work to protect their fees. In addition, we proudly serve as a reputable firm for referring attorneys to entrust their clients with should they be approached with an insurance claim case. Don’t fight insurance companies on your own. Contact us today!

Expert Insights Delivered to You

Practice Areas
Legal Counsel
Experienced Counsel

Assignment of Rights Under Insurance Policy

Posted by AdM60437214 on Jul 2, 2015 in General Legal News , Medical Group Practice Management | 0 comments

On July 1, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued its opinion in Action Chiropractic Clinic, LLC v. Hyler, et al. , holding that a patient’s “Assignment of Rights” to a medical provider must be clear and unambiguous in order to be enforceable by the medical provider. The opinion provides critical guidance to medical practices seeking to protect their right to payment from third party legal settlements.

In Action Chiropractic , the patient received chiropractic treatment due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The patient was not the driver of the vehicle, and had made a claim against the driver’s automobile liability insurance company, Erie Insurance Exchange. Action Chiropractic agreed to defer receipt of payment from the patient until the patient’s legal claim against Erie was settled, provided that the patient executed an Assignment of Rights directing Erie to either (i) pay Action Chiropractic directly in the amount of the patient’s chiropractic bills, or (ii) make the check payable to the patient but mail the check to Action Chiropractic.

In determining that the Assignment of Rights signed by the patient was not effective, and therefore unenforceable, the Court analyzed the language of the “Assignment of Rights” provision signed by the patient. Importantly, the Assignment of Rights directed the patient’s health insurance, automobile insurance, or other party obligated to pay medical expense benefits to the patient to make the payment directly to Action Chiropractic. Erie did not honor the Assignment of Rights, but instead made the payment directly to the patient. The patient, in turn, failed to pay Action Chiropractic and Action Chiropractic filed suit seeking to enforce the Assignment of Rights.

The Supreme Court noted at the outset that Erie was not obligated to honor the Assignment of Rights for several reasons:

1. Erie was not the patient’s insurance provider, but was the insurance provider for the third-party driver of the vehicle. Erie did not consent to the Assignment of Rights and had no privity of contract with Action Chiropractic. Therefore, Action Chiropractic was merely an incidental beneficiary of the settlement payment and had no right to enforce the Assignment.

2. Even if Action Chiropractic did have a right to enforce the Assignment, the Assignment was nonetheless unenforceable under Tennessee law because the clear language of the Assignment purported to make an assignment of medical expense benefits payable to the patient under the patien’s own insurance policy. Erie was not the patient’s insurance provider, but was the insurance provider for the third-party driver of the vehicle.

3. In addition, the Court held that the Assignment language was narrowly tailored to payment for “medical expense benefits,” and did not extend to settlement proceeds paid in settlement of a legal claim.

The takeaway from Action Chiropractic is that medical providers must have very specifically drafted assignment agreements to protect their right to deferred payment from or on behalf of patients who are receiving treatment for injuries caused by a third party.

The assignment agreements should include language assigning payments received by the patient from any source (including settlement proceeds or court judgments/verdicts from legal claims), should specifically include claims paid by any insurance provider or other third party making payment for the patient’s injuries (not only the patient’s insurance provider), should include the written consent of the insurance provider to be bound by the assignment, and should be clear and ambiguous with regard to what is being assigned.

As an additional risk management measure, Griffin Law advises medical providers to obtain a separate written agreement with the patient whereby the patient agrees to remit full payment to the medical provider promptly upon receipt of any payment for the sustained injuries, including payment received from any insurance provider, any settlement proceeds, any court judgment or verdict, or otherwise.

Please contact Griffin Law Office at (615) 668-0462, or [email protected], should you have questions or would like further information about this important legal development.

The Court’s full opinion may be viewed from the following link.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/courts/supreme-court/opinions/2015/07/01/action-chiropractic-clinic-llc-v-prentice-delon-hyler-et-al

Christi Griffin

LLC "TFN"

/ BUSINESS DIRECTORY
/ RETAIL TRADE
/ SPORTING GOODS, HOBBY, MUSICAL INSTRUMENT, BOOK, AND MISCELLANEOUS RETAILERS
/ OTHER MISCELLANEOUS RETAILERS
/ RUSSIAN FEDERATION
/ MOSCOW REGION
/ ELEKTROSTAL
/ LLC "TFN"
Ekaterina Yurevna Kazakova Director-General

Dynamic search and list-building capabilities

Real-time trigger alerts

Comprehensive company profiles

Valuable research and technology reports

NEW MEXICO INSURANCE REGULATOR ISSUES ORDER TO PROTECT SMALL HEALTH CARE PRACTICES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 21, 2024

Contact: Viara Ianakieva, Life and Health Division Director Email: [email protected]

New Mexico Insurance Regulator Issues Order to Protect Small Health Care Practices After Nationwide Change Healthcare Cyber Incident

Santa Fe, N.M. – On Wednesday March 20, 2024, the New Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) issued an order in response to the Change Healthcare cyber incident. The cyber incident occurred on February 21 and continues to cause uncertainty for small and independent health providers as they try to make health care decisions for their patients in New Mexico.

“I have directed health insurers under OSI’s jurisdiction to take several steps to minimize disruptions in the delivery of critical health care services for New Mexicans and support our local health care providers,” said Superintendent of Insurance Alice Kane.

OSI’s order focuses on relief for non-hospital-affiliated health care providers. The order directs major medical insurers regulated by OSI to temporarily suspend prior authorizations, refrain from retroactively denying claims due to common issues caused by the cyber incident, and waive “timely filing” policies that require providers to submit claims within a certain timeframe after services are rendered. The order applies to in-person health care delivery and telehealth.

“Independently owned physician practices in New Mexico and around the country have been adversely impacted by a cyber-attack on Change Healthcare, which is a company that plays an integral role in our health care delivery system,” said Anne Jung, Executive Director of the New Mexico Medical Society. “Most notably, the cyber-attack has made it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for physicians to receive payment for the healthcare services they provide to New Mexicans. This comprehensive Bulletin focuses relief on the pain points small and independent practices have experienced due to the nationwide collapse of interconnected systems.”

“I want to thank New Mexico’s major medical insurers for the significant steps already taken to help providers resolve issues stemming from this cyber incident,” said Superintendent Kane. “I hope that OSI’s order will provide additional relief for smaller health care practices that are under significant strain.”

This order applies to fully-insured major medical plans in the individual, small group, and large group markets. OSI does not have authority over other types of health coverage, such as self-funded health plans, Medicaid, Medicare, or TRICARE.

Springfield approves settlement with former transgender employee

The City of Springfield has approved a settlement in a complaint filed in 2020 over the denial of gender-affirming health care to a former city employee.

Under terms of the settlement, the city will pay $95,000 to Katherine Anastacia Holt, who worked for Lincoln Library, for harm she suffered as well as legal fees.

The library is a department of the city.

Amber Sabin, a city spokeswoman, said the settlement will come out of the city's self-insurance fund.

Holt sought coverage for medications and other medical care prescribed by her physician to treat her gender dysphoria, which is generally the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.

Holt later learned that the city's insurance plan specifically denied coverage for “sex transformation and hormones related to such treatment.”

In February 2022, the Illinois Human Rights Commission ruled in Holt's favor. Several months later, the city changed its health insurance plan for employees to cover gender-affirming care.

The decision was the first time that excluding gender-affirming care from employee insurance plans was declared to violate Illinois’ civil rights law, including protections for sex and gender identity.

Hanauer said his concern was about other areas the city's insurance doesn't cover that it could liable for.

"I've had people reach out to me and say when people come (to work for the city), they know what the insurance covers and just because it doesn't cover what they want, to me I think a lot of people feel that this isn't right," Hanauer said.

Related: Repeal of state grocery tax could cost city of Springfield millions

City attorney Gregory Moredock said that after the suit was filed in November 2020, Illinois changed the insurance code to define and cover the types of claims that were at issue in the lawsuit.

"We do now address those issues," he said. "We did move to dismiss this case because these items were not required by the insurance code when this lawsuit was filed, but I do think that subsequent changes to the insurance code have better clarified what we need to cover, and the city does cover that now."

Holt, through the ACLU of Illinois who represented her in the case, said the settlement was "a win for me and for every transgender employee across Illinois. It brings closure to my personal struggle after Springfield denied me coverage simply because of who I am. That was wrong.

“But this outcome also sends a strong signal to all employers including towns, cities, and counties across Illinois that they are violating the law if they do not provide coverage for gender-affirming care for their employees.”

Contact Steven Spearie: 217-622-1788; [email protected]; X, twitter.com/@StevenSpearie.

Greene County woman arrested, charged with insurance fraud

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCT) — A Greene County woman has been arrested and charged with insurance fraud and other crimes.

North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey on Tuesday announced the arrest of Shinese Rayshawn Cox, 31, of 865 Kingold Blvd., in Snow Hill. Cox was charged with obtaining property by false pretense, attempting to obtain property by false pretense and two counts of insurance fraud, all felonies.

Special agents with the Department of Insurance’s Criminal Investigations division accuse Cox of filing fraudulent claims for windshield and hood damage from winds with multiple insurance companies including Progressive Premier, Liberty Mutual and Safeco insurance companies.

According to arrest warrants, Cox received $1,355.13 for one of the false claims. According to the arrest warrants, these offenses occurred between Feb. 1, 2023, and May 13, 2023.

Cox was arrested on March 21 and given a $10,000 secured bond. She is scheduled to appear in Greene County District Court on April 19.

Greene County deputies and the District Attorney’s office in the 9th Prosecutorial District assisted in the investigation.

“Property and casualty insurance fraud costs insurance customers an estimated $120 billion a year in increased premiums,” said Causey. “The Department of Insurance has beefed up its fraud-fighting staff in an effort to make more arrests to keep fraud from driving up insurance costs.”

If you suspect insurance fraud or other white-collar crimes, please report it. You may anonymously report fraud by calling the N.C. Department of Insurance Criminal Investigations Division at (919) 807-6840 or toll free from anywhere in North Carolina at 888-680-7684.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WNCT.

Greene County woman arrested, charged with insurance fraud

Client log in

Metallurgicheskii Zavod Electrostal AO (Russia)

In 1993 "Elektrostal" was transformed into an open joint stock company. The factory occupies a leading position among the manufacturers of high quality steel. The plant is a producer of high-temperature nickel alloys in a wide variety. It has a unique set of metallurgical equipment: open induction and arc furnaces, furnace steel processing unit, vacuum induction, vacuum- arc furnaces and others. The factory has implemented and certified quality management system ISO 9000, received international certificates for all products. Elektrostal today is a major supplier in Russia starting blanks for the production of blades, discs and rolls for gas turbine engines. Among them are companies in the aerospace industry, defense plants, and energy complex, automotive, mechanical engineering and instrument-making plants.

Headquarters Ulitsa Zheleznodorozhnaya, 1 Elektrostal; Moscow Oblast; Postal Code: 144002

Contact Details: Purchase the Metallurgicheskii Zavod Electrostal AO report to view the information.

Website: http://elsteel.ru

EMIS company profiles are part of a larger information service which combines company, industry and country data and analysis for over 145 emerging markets.

Similar companies

Related emis industry reports.

To view more information, Request a demonstration of the EMIS service

Today's news
Reviews and deals
Climate change
2024 election
Fall allergies
Health news
Mental health
Sexual health
Family health
So mini ways
Unapologetically
Buying guides

Entertainment

How to Watch
My watchlist
Stock market
Biden economy
Personal finance
Stocks: most active
Stocks: gainers
Stocks: losers
Trending tickers
World indices
US Treasury bonds
Top mutual funds
Highest open interest
Highest implied volatility
Currency converter
Basic materials
Communication services
Consumer cyclical
Consumer defensive
Financial services
Industrials
Real estate
Mutual funds
Credit cards
Credit card rates
Balance transfer credit cards
Business credit cards
Cash back credit cards
Rewards credit cards
Travel credit cards
Checking accounts
Online checking accounts
High-yield savings accounts
Money market accounts
Personal loans
Student loans
Car insurance
Home buying
Options pit
Investment ideas
Research reports
Fantasy football
Pro Pick 'Em
College Pick 'Em
Fantasy baseball
Fantasy hockey
Fantasy basketball
Download the app
Daily fantasy
Scores and schedules
GameChannel
World Baseball Classic
Premier League
CONCACAF League
Champions League
Motorsports
Horse racing
Newsletters

New on Yahoo

CA Privacy Notice

15 men brought to military enlistment office after mass brawl in Moscow Oblast

Local security forces brought 15 men to a military enlistment office after a mass brawl at a warehouse of the Russian Wildberries company in Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast on Feb. 8, Russian Telegram channel Shot reported .

29 people were also taken to police stations. Among the arrested were citizens of Kyrgyzstan.

A mass brawl involving over 100 employees and security personnel broke out at the Wildberries warehouse in Elektrostal on Dec. 8.

Read also: Moscow recruits ‘construction brigades’ from Russian students, Ukraine says

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron !

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine

The 'extreme' Social Security move that actually makes sense

The election year battle over cherished retirement programs is a microcosm explaining why Washington doesn't solve solvable problems.

Kenny Brooks leaves Virginia Tech for Kentucky job in stunning end of era

Within a couple of weeks, Virginia Tech's Final Four hopes dropped because of Elizabeth Kitley's injury and Brooks exited for the SEC.

Halle Berry thought she could 'skip' perimenopause. A health scare after 'great sex' was a wake-up call.

Halle Berry shared a personal health story alongside first lady Jill Biden during "A Day of Unreasonable Conversation" event.

2024 Fantasy Baseball: Top MLB prospects who deserve draft day attention

Whether it's due to struggles or lack of promotion, drafting prospects can backfire. But Andy Behrens thinks these incoming rookies are still worth the risk.

Shohei Ohtani interpreter scandal: Major holes poked in Ippei Mizuhara's pre-Ohtani résumé

Ippei Mizuhara was fired by the Dodgers earlier this week.

Steelers reportedly signing all-time kickoff TD leader Cordarrelle Patterson after kickoff rule changes

A good kick returner just became a lot more valuable.

Ex-Jaguars employee who once hacked team's Jumbotron sentenced to 220 years in prison for child molestation

The FBI searched Samuel Arthur Thompson's home after figuring out he hacked the Jaguars' jumbotron. What they found next was awful.

Dave Roberts happy there's no longer a 'buffer' between Shohei Ohtani and Dodgers after Ippei Mizuhara firing

The Dodgers apparently didn't love Mizuhara's influence on Ohtani before the scandal.

Realtor commission change delivers a boon to homebuilders, a blow to real estate platforms

A landmark settlement changing the real estate commission structure will reshape nearly every aspect of the homebuying process — from homebuyers to brokerages to homebuilders.

Bad NFLPA grades push Patriots' Robert Kraft, Chiefs' Clark Hunt to make upgrades

In two NFL markets, the players' complaints were heard.

Dana White confirms Igor Severino will be cut after biting opponent in UFC debut

He bit him. He really bit him.

Dodgers' reported reaction to Shohei Ohtani's $680 million deferral request: 'Holy f***'

Andrew Friedman reacted like the rest of us when he heard Shohei Ohtani's contract proposal.

Disney had big plans in India — here's why it's pulling back

Disney is retreating from India. Here's why it's happening now.

These Patagonia jackets are a steal right now at REI at almost $250 off today only

Combine these deals for a cold-weather system that'll keep you warm and dry for years to come for nearly $250 off the MSRP

How the Mariners assembled and developed the most fearsome rotation in baseball: 'It’s unbelievable what those guys can do'

Seattle’s rotation features an array of arms no hitter wants to face — and it might still be getting better.

Texas is refusing to register kei trucks, and owners are fighting back

"The Autopian" reports that owners of kei trucks are running into more problems registering their vehicles, and an organization formed to fight back.

Medicare Advantage chaos is making life more difficult for hospitals, insurers — and seniors

Hospitals and insurance giants are clashing over Medicare Advantage plans as both sides try to protect their profits. Many seniors are caught in the crosshairs.

2024 Fantasy Baseball predictions for every American League team

Fantasy baseball analyst Dalton Del Don delivers his boldest takes for the American League — and he thinks a top-five draft pick is set to win MVP.

Veteran MLB players who will still get it done in both fantasy and reality in 2024

The Yahoo Fantasy Baseball and Yahoo MLB crews join forces to reveal which boring, old veterans still have the juice for the season ahead.

Watch CBS News

State Farm won't renew homeowners coverage for 72,000 California homes and apartments

Updated on: March 27, 2024 / 11:02 AM EDT / AP

Sacramento, Calif. — State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting this summer, the insurance giant said this week, nine months after announcing it wouldn't issue new home policies in the state .

The Illinois-based company, California's largest insurer, cited soaring costs, the increasing risk of catastrophes like wildfires and outdated regulations as reasons it won't renew the policies on 30,000 houses and 42,000 apartments, the Bay Area News Group reported Thursday.

"This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General's financial health, which continues to be impacted by inflation, catastrophe exposure, reinsurance costs, and the limitations of working within decades-old insurance regulations," the company said in a statement Wednesday.

"State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws," it continued. "It is necessary to take these actions now."

The move comes as California's elected insurance commissioner undertakes a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming the state's imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas, the news group said.

The California Department of Insurance said State Farm will have to answer question from regulators about its decision to discontinue coverage .

"One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds," Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller said. "We need to be confident in State Farm's strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers."

It was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation.

Last June, State Farm said it would stop accepting applications for all business and personal lines of property and casualty insurance, citing inflation, a challenging reinsurance market and "rapidly growing catastrophe exposure."

The company said the newly announced cancellations account for just over 2% of its California policies. It did not say where they're located or what criteria it used to determine that they wouldn't be renewed.

Homeowners Insurance
California Wildfires

More from CBS News

Arnold Schwarzenegger says he got a pacemaker fitted last week

Sacramento is now a sanctuary city for transgender people

New apartment building being built in Sacramento goes up in flames

Feds say California's facial hair ban for prison guards amounts to religious discrimination

IMAGES

Insurance Assignment Form
FREE 11+ Assignment of Insurance Policy Samples in PDF
Free Insurance Assignment Agreement
Assignment of rights example: Fill out & sign online
assignment of life insurance policy Doc Template
Assignment Rights Form

VIDEO

Auto Insurance Assignment
COMMERCIAL LAW GROUP ASSIGNMENT
Aviation Insurance Assignment 1

COMMENTS

Can You Assign Your Insurance Benefits to Someone Else?
The anti-assignment clause doesn't distinguish between assignments made before a loss and those made afterward. Even so, courts in most states have allowed policyholders to assign their rights to another party after a loss has occurred. Pre-loss assignments are still prohibited. Here is an example of a post-loss assignment of insurance benefits.
Assignment of Benefits for Contractors: Pros & Cons of ...
An assignment of benefits, or AOB, is an agreement to transfer insurance claim rights to a third party. It gives the assignee authority to file and negotiate a claim directly with the insurance company, without involvement from the property owner. An AOB also allows the insurer to pay the contractor directly instead of funneling funds through ...
Free Insurance Assignment Agreement
The Insurance Policy Beneficiary will have to be identified for this assignment to function properly. This will be the Party who is designated on the concerned insurance policy as the Recipient of its benefits (i.e. payment). Produce this Beneficiary's full name and address. (3) Assuming Party.
Assignment of Benefits: What It Is, and How It Can Affect your ...
What is an Assignment of Benefits? In the context of insured property claims, an assignment of benefits (AOB) is an agreement between you and a contractor in which you give the contractor your right to insurance payments for a specific scope of work.In exchange, the contractor agrees that it will not seek payment from you for that scope of work, except for the amount of any applicable deductible.
What Is An Assignee On A Life Insurance Policy?
This is a legal document that outlines the terms of the assignment, including the assignee's rights, responsibilities, and any potential compensation or considerations involved. Notify the Insurance Company: The policyholder must contact their insurance company to inform them of the intention to assign the policy. The insurance company may ...
Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions
Insurance policies typically contain clauses prohibiting assignment of the policy, or policy rights, without the insurer's consent. Transactions involving the sale of a business or some or all of its assets often include provisions governing the transfer of insurance rights for losses or liabilities that predate the transfer.
What Is a Life Insurance Assignment?
A life insurance assignment is a document that allows you to transfer the ownership rights of your policy to a third party, transferring to that third party all rights of ownership under your ...
What Is an Anti-Assignment Clause?
An anti-assignment clause is a provision in an insurance policy that bars the policyholder from transferring their rights under the policy to another party. The clause prohibits the insured from authorizing someone else to file claims, make changes, or take other actions under the policy. Many small businesses purchase insurance policies that ...
assignment
Assignment is a transfer of legal rights under or interest in an insurance policy to another party. Additional Information In most instances, the assignment of such rights can only be effected with the written consent of the insurer.
Simply Speaking (May 2020)
An insurance assignment is required in ship finance transactions because it helps protect the lender's interest if there is a casualty affecting the vessel. Maritime casualties are an inherent risk in shipping, and there is always the possibility that the vessel may cause damage or be damaged or lost. The vessel is the primary collateral for ...
Post-Loss Assignments of Claims Under Insurance Policies
Post-loss assignments, on the other hand, take place after the insurer's obligations under its policy have become fixed by the occurrence of a covered loss, thus the risk factors applicable to ...
Can You Assign Your Rights Under an Insurance Contract that Prohibits
Increased defense costs, standing alone, is not grounds to invalidate the assignment. If that were the case, the Court reasoned, there would never be a permissible assignment of "insurance rights between entities that face common litigation threats, because any such assignment could drive up total defense costs to the insurer."
How Does Your Insurance Policy's "Assignment of Benefits" Clause Affect
The contractor looks at the damage, and estimates the likely cost of repairing the property. Maybe that estimate is greater than the coverage amount the homeowner expects the insurance company to pay out. In this instance, the contractor will sometimes suggest that the homeowner enter into an "assignment of benefits" (AOB) arrangement.
AOBs and Assignments of Insurance Rights
Assignments got a bad rap because of an extraordinary law in the State of Florida that encouraged litigation by allowing the holder of an assignment to collect attorney's fees in a lawsuit against an insurance company, even if there was no wrongdoing by the insurance company. The insurance lobby put an end to that when F.S. 627.7152 was passed.
Assignment of Benefits (AOB)
Assignment of Benefits (AOB) is an agreement that transfers the insurance claims rights or benefits of the policy to a third party. An AOB gives the third party authority to file a claim, make repair decisions, and collect insurance payments without the involvement of the homeowner. AOBs are commonly used in homeowners' insurance claims by ...
ASSIGNMENTS IN INSURANCE LAW
In insurance the assignment means assignment of rights under the contract. An assignee for all purposes becomes the owner of the policy and enjoys all rights thereunder. However, by assignment no change is made in the subject matter insured by the policy and it remains unaltered.". [9]
Assignment of Life Insurance Policy
Listen to this article. Assignment of a Life Insurance Policy simply means transfer of rights from one person to another. The policyholder can transfer the rights of his insurance policy to another for various reasons and this process is called Assignment. The person who assigns the policy, i.e. transfers the rights, is called the Assignor and ...
Assignment of Benefits May Be Dead in Ohio
Under Ohio law, an assignment of contract rights is generally invalid when 'there is clear contractual language prohibiting assignment.'. Pilkington N. Am., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 861 N.E.2d 121, 128 (Ohio 2006). Here, the insurance contracts expressly barred any assignment absent State Farm's consent and State Farm did not ...
Assignment of Rights Under Insurance Policy
Importantly, the Assignment of Rights directed the patient's health insurance, automobile insurance, or other party obligated to pay medical expense benefits to the patient to make the payment directly to Action Chiropractic. Erie did not honor the Assignment of Rights, but instead made the payment directly to the patient.
LLC "TFN" Company Profile
Find company research, competitor information, contact details & financial data for LLC
Long-term care insurance prices are down: Here's why you should buy a
According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance, in 2023, the average 55-year-old man in superior health paid about $900 annually for $165,000 in level long-term care benefits ...
Office of Superintendent of Insurance
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. March 21, 2024 Contact: Viara Ianakieva, Life and Health Division Director Email: [email protected] New Mexico Insurance Regulator Issues Order to Protect Small Health Care Practices After Nationwide Change Healthcare Cyber Incident Santa Fe, N.M.- On Wednesday March 20, 2024, the New Mexico Office of Superintendent of Insurance (OSI) issued an order in ...
Springfield paying nearly $100K to settle civil rights case
0:03. 0:51. The City of Springfield has approved a settlement in a complaint filed in 2020 over the denial of gender-affirming health care to a former city employee. Under terms of the settlement ...
NRA: Supreme Court grapples with claim that New York pressured ...
The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with an unusual First Amendment appeal from the National Rifle Association against a New York financial regulator who persuaded banks and insurance companies ...
MercyMe & TOBYMAC Tickets Nov 09, 2024 Portland, ME
MercyMe & TOBYMAC. Sat • Nov 09 • 7:00 PM Cross Insurance Arena , Portland, ME. Important Event Info: FOR GROUPS OF 10 OR MORE, CONTACT GROUP EXPERIENCES AT (207) 791-2201 OR [email protected]. AWAKENING EVENTS/AWAKENING FOUNDATION SHOWS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW LOCAL HEALTH AND VENUE REQUIREMENTS. CHANGES IN LOCAL HEALTH ...
Greene County woman arrested, charged with insurance fraud
You may anonymously report fraud by calling the N.C. Department of Insurance Criminal Investigations Division at (919) 807-6840 or toll free from anywhere in North Carolina at 888-680-7684.
Metallurgicheskii Zavod Electrostal AO (Russia)
Main Activities: Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing | Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding. Full name: Metallurgicheskii Zavod Electrostal AO Profile Updated: February 22, 2024. Buy our report for this company USD 29.95 Most recent financial data: 2022 Available in: English & Russian ...
How much does long-term care insurance cost for a 75 year-old?
A 75 year-old male would pay an annual premium of about $4,052.36 for $165,000 in level long-term care benefits with New York Life. A female would pay about $5,456.03 for the same coverage. That ...
15 men brought to military enlistment office after mass brawl in Moscow
The New Voice of Ukraine. Local security forces brought 15 men to a military enlistment office after a mass brawl at a warehouse of the Russian Wildberries company in Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast on Feb. 8, Russian Telegram channel Shot reported. 29 people were also taken to police stations. Among the arrested were citizens of Kyrgyzstan.
State Farm won't renew homeowners coverage for 72,000 ...
March 22, 2024 / 5:48 AM EDT / AP. Sacramento, Calif. — State Farm will discontinue coverage for 72,000 houses and apartments in California starting this summer, the insurance giant said this ...

Assignment of Benefits for Contractors: Pros & Cons of Accepting an AOB

What is an assignment of benefits?

Setting up an AOB

Pros & cons for contractors

Pro: Hiring a public adjuster

Pro: More control over payment

Pro: Build a better relationship with the homeowner

Con: It confuses payment responsibilities

Con: Tighter margins

Con: More administrative work

Con: Increase in average collection period

AOBs and mechanics liens

Best practices for contractors

Ask an expert for free

Recommended for you

What Is a Work in Progress Schedule? | Construction Accounting

Construction Contracts: What Does “Workmanlike Manner” Mean?

What Is a Notice of Completion?

Construction Contracts: Pros and Cons of a Cost-Plus Contract

What Does ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Mean?

The Ultimate Guide to Lien Waivers in Construction

What Is a Notice of Commencement? Your Guide with Form Downloads

Assignment of Benefits: What It Is, and How It Can Affect your Property Insurance Claim

What is an Assignment of Benefits?

How Does an Assignment of Benefits Work in Practice?

Are There any Downsides to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Do I have to sign an Assignment of Benefits?

Are There any Benefits to Signing an Assignment of Benefits?

Can my insurance policy restrict the use of AOBs?

Do I have any rights or protections concerning Assignments of Benefits?

Protections in the AOB Contract

Contractor Duties

Recommended Posts

What Is An Assignee On A Life Insurance Policy?

Table of Contents

Our Review on The Credit One Credit Card

20 Quick Tips To Saving Your Way To A Million Dollars

How Can You Find Out About A Credit Inquiry On Your Report

Statement Shock Definition

8 Ways to Generate Passive Income with Cryptocurrency

Next-Level Learning: Examining the Advantages of Online Post-Master’s FNP Education

The Recipe for a Balanced Life: Mixing Online Learning With Health and Wellness

Money Matters: Master Your Financial Future

Accounting For Photographers: Important Tips

Please accept our Privacy Policy.

Transferring Insurance Rights in Corporate Transactions

Why Is Transferability of Insurance Important?

Do Insurance Rights Transfer or Not?

The Minority Rule

What Law Governs?

Hybrid Approaches

What Is a Life Insurance Assignment?

Conditional Assignment

Absolute Assignment

Secured Loan

Collateral Loan

Related Articles

What Is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

How Anti-Assignment Clauses Work

Definition and Example of an Anti-Assignment Clause

Effect of State Laws on Anti-Assignment Clauses

Key Takeaways

Simply Speaking (May 2020) — Insurance Assignments

Related Attorneys

Lawrence Rutkowski

Michael S. Timpone

Related Practices

Featured Stories

Current Magazine

Post-Loss Assignments of Claims Under Insurance Policies

Written By Robert Redfearn, Jr.

Excess, Surplus & Specialty Markets Directory Vol. II – The Industry’s Leading Coverage Placement Directory

Insurance Jobs

New York Commercial Division Practice

Can You Assign Your Rights Under an Insurance Contract that Prohibits Assignment? Only for Prior, Fixed Losses

AOBs and Assignments of Insurance Rights

Don’t miss out on the 75 th Diamond Anniversary International Restoration Convention + Industry Expo! Click here to register and find out more!

Assignment of Benefits (AOB)

Introduction

1.2 Assignment