Amendments to Ohio’s Viatical Settlement Act will limit stranger-originated life insurance transactions and give the state’s insurance department additional oversight authority. New legislation requires brokers and providers to give more information to insurers and to report STOLI transactions to the state’s insurance department.

State Insurance Director Mary Jo Hudson said state legislators “recognize a shared responsibility of the life-settlement industry, life insurance companies and the department to protect consumers against STOLI transactions.”

Previous post regarding Ohio Life Settlements here at Life Settlement News:
Ohio Life Settlement Bill

Source: News-Messenger (Fremont, Ohio), The (07/01)

Strickland signs life insurance settlement bill.

A measure that tightens state law governing the method of buying life insurance policies from consumers will take effect in September after garnering Gov. Ted Strickland’s signature Wednesday.

Strickland’s OK was the final hurdle for H.B. 404, which amends the Ohio Viatical Settlement Act and is aimed at improving protections for those looking to sell a policy to a third party through a so-called life insurance settlement.

The Ohio Department of Insurance and others backed the bill because of a perceived increase in settlements arranged for financial gain, but industry opponents claimed the bill overregulated the process.

Life insurance settlements involve buying an individual’s life policy for less than its face value, taking over premium payments until the death of the insured and then collecting the full payout. A viatical settlement specifically involves the terminally ill or elderly selling a policy to pay medical bills or other expenses.

The measure also creates a framework to restrict what’s called “stranger-oriented” life insurance. That practice involves an investor persuading someone to buy a policy with the understanding that the investor will take it over after a state-mandated two-year waiting period.

One provision of the amended law, which goes into effect in 90 days, extends that period to five years, primarily in cases not between family members. The new law also requires parties to provide additional settlement-related information to insurers before closing the deal. Insurers must ask specific questions to identify the stranger-oriented transactions and then report them to the insurance department.

Insurance department Director Mary Jo Hudson on Wednesday called the bill a major step toward creating a shared responsibility among the life settlement industry, insurers and the state department.

“I strongly believe that this change to Ohio law will deter (stranger-oriented) transactions from occurring in Ohio,” Hudson said in a statement.

Source: Business First

Call 1-888-973-8377 to speak with a Life Settlement Professional. 

MIAMI–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Life-Exchange, Inc., (OTCBB:LFXG), the nation’s leading business-to-business online exchange for the life settlement industry, announced today its financial results for the nine months ended March 31, 2008 with revenue of $1,004,984 for the period, as well as net income of $332,128 for the same nine month period.

“Reaching revenues of over $1 million marks a very important milestone for Life-Exchange and we are extremely pleased that we can show our investors positive operating results,” commented David C. Dorr, Life-Exchange’s Chief Executive Officer and President. “The last nine months have been extremely productive for Life-Exchange and we will continue to aggressively execute on our business plan in order to realize the significant opportunities that the life settlement industry has to offer.”

The Company’s primary financial information is shown below, comparing the nine months ending March 31, 2008 with the nine months ending March 31, 2007. The discussion of the Company’s financial results should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and the other financial information appearing in the Company’s Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Continue Reading »

LISA Questions NAIFA and AALU Support of Carriers Over Producers and Consumers

ORLANDO, FL–(Marketwire – May 1, 2008) – The two major associations representing insurance producers have enthusiastically endorsed legislation in several states that harms consumers, producers and the insurance industry as a whole. In doing so, both the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) and the American Association of Life Underwriters (AALU) raise serious questions about their independence and ability to serve their members.

Despite ongoing controversy over the legislation, both NAIFA and AALU continue to actively support state bills based on the profoundly flawed National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Viatical Settlements Model Act. A recent article in California Broker Magazine asserts that this support, which is in direct conflict with the interests of producers, is due to the fact that both organizations are economically beholden to life insurance companies. The article details how AALU’s advocacy arm is dominated by carriers and how financial contributions from major insurers prompted NAIFA to reverse its position on key provisions of the NAIC Model and adopt a patently anti-consumer and anti-producer stance.
Continue Reading »

Oregon Proposes Fingerprinting Rule

This isn’t direct news regarding Oregon Life Settlement Regulation or Laws but is a step in the right direction regarding the the screening of applicants and renewing applicants. We stand behind their decision and feel that other states should adopt similar policies.

Oregon’s Department of Consumer and Business Services has proposed adopting rules that would require fingerprints of a person applying for issuance or renewal of a license as an insurance producer, insurance consultant, adjuster, life settlement provider or life settlement broker, in connection with a request for a state or nationwide criminal records check.

According to the DCBS, the rules are needed to enable the Director to request complete criminal checks at the state or federal level and facilitate the Department’s responsibility to ensure that license applicants under the Insurance Code meet all licensing requirements and to determine, with available information, whether applicants’ past behaviors might indicate potential hazards to the insurance-buying public. Failure to adopt rulemaking on this topic will result in the Department’s failure to carry out the authority granted by section 1, chapter 619, Oregon Laws 2007 and the consequent failure to properly inquire into possible criminal histories of applicants for renewal or issuance, it stated.

The last day to comment on the proposed rule is May 28. For information on the proposed rule and to submit comments, visit:
Oregon Fingerprinting Notice

Source: DCBS