June 1, 2020

May 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Second Circuit Holds That New York’s Two Year Contestability Statute Means Two Years

In AEI Life LLC v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., No. 17-224, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15485 (2d Cir. Jun. 8, 2018), a Trust purchased a $6.5 million life insurance policy on an individual.  On the application, it claimed that the named individual had a net worth of $87 million and an annual income of $1.5 million.  It would later prove that this simply wasn’t true.  But in the meantime, a stranger to the policy deposited money into the Trust, which was used to pay the $205,000 in yearly premiums.

Roughly three years later, the Trust sold the policy to another entity, who had no knowledge of the fraud.  The new policy owner eventually sued the insurer, seeking a declaration that the insurer was barred from challenging the validity of the policy under New York’s two-year contestability statute.  The district court granted the policy owner’s motion for summary judgment and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

This case presented a number of issues, including whether a policy obtained by fraud was void ab initio or merely voidable.  But before getting to that question, the court had to decide whether New York or New Jersey law applied, because each state applied its two-year contestability statute differently.  In New Jersey, a policy obtained by fraudulent means is void, meaning that it can be challenged at any time.  But in New York, such policies are voidable, meaning that they are not subject to challenge after the two-year contestability period has closed.

The insurer argued that New Jersey law applied because the application said that it was signed there, and the policy’s “conformity with state law” provision stated that the certificate was “subject to the laws of the state where the application was signed.”  The Court of Appeals rejected the insurer’s argument that the conformity clause was a choice-of-law provision.  It noted that that ordinarily a conformity clause has the effect of excising a provision in policy that conflicts with state law.  And although it would not foreclose the possibility that a clause could be both a conformity clause and a choice-of-law provision, here the provision did not identify itself as a choice-of-law provision; nor did it identify a specific state.  The court applied New York’s center of gravity test and determined that New York law applied.  As a result the court held that the policy was voidable.  Because the insurer had collected premiums for more than two years, the policy’s legitimacy was no longer subject to challenge.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


About this Author

Peter Kramer, Insurance attorney, Squire PB

Peter Kramer focuses his practice on insurance litigation and settlement advocacy. He concentrates on multistate insurance regulatory issues including sales practices, advertising and compliance with the various state regulatory requirements.

Peter has handled numerous mismanagement and fraudulent sales practice audits and investigations for clients in various industries including insurance, real estate and other regulated commercial sales sectors. He also advises clients on internal corporate audits and investigations regarding compliance, fraud and theft-related issues. In...

+1 305 577 2964
Kelly Mihocik, Squire Patton Boggs Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Kelly Mihocik focuses her practice on general and complex commercial litigation matters.

Kelly joined the firms after serving as a Staff Attorney for the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Kelly completes complex legal research and prepares analysis and pleadings on behalf of her clients.