assignment of insurance policy rights

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Building Your Business
• Business Insurance

Can You Assign Your Insurance Benefits to Someone Else?

Monashee Frantz / Getty Images

Most business insurance policies contain a so-called anti-assignment clause. This clause prohibits policyholders from transferring any of their rights under the policy to someone else. This means that the insured business cannot cede its right to collect claim payments to another party. However, laws in most states permit policyholders to transfer their rights to another party under certain circumstances.

Anti-Assignment Clause

In the standard ISO policies , the anti-assignment clause is located in a separate form called the Common Policy Conditions. These conditions apply to all coverages that are included in the policy. For instance, if a policy includes business auto , general liability , and commercial property coverages, the anti-assignment clause applies to all three coverages.

The clause is entitled Transfer of Your Rights and Duties Under This Policy. It includes the following provision:

Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent except in the case of death of an individual named insured.

The anti-assignment clause prohibits the  named insured from transferring any of its rights or obligations under the policy to someone else without the insurer's permission. The only exception is if the named insured is an individual (sole proprietor) and he or she dies. An assignment is permitted in this case because a sole proprietorship and the individual owner are one and the same. If the individual dies, the business cannot survive unless it is sold to someone else.

An anti-assignment clause is intended to prevent the insurer from unwittingly assuming risks it never intended to take on. Commercial insurers review business insurance applicants carefully. Before they issue policies, underwriters consider the knowledge and experience of a company's owners and managerial staff. If a business is sold to someone else, the new owners may not be as skilled or attentive as the previous ones. From the insurer's perspective, the new owners are an unknown risk.

Post-Loss Assignments Permitted

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.

Victor operates a restaurant called Vital Vittles out of a building he owns. Late one January night two water pipes in the building freeze. The pipes subsequently burst, causing considerable water damage to Victor's building. Victor is forced to close his restaurant until the repairs are completed.

Victor hires a water damage contractor called Rapid Restoration to repair the damage to his building. He tells the contractor that he needs the repairs done quickly as he is anxious to reopen his restaurant. The contractor says that the repairs can be expedited if Victor signs over his rights under the policy to Rapid Restoration. The contractor will then proceed with the repairs and negotiate a claim settlement with Vital Vittles' commercial property insurer. Victor agrees to the assignment and the contractor begins the repair work.

While Vital Vittles' commercial property policy contains an anti-assignment clause, Victor has assigned his rights to Rapid Restoration after a loss has occurred. Thus, in most states, Victor's insurer cannot reject the assignment (assuming post-loss assignments are permitted in Victor's state).

Problems With Assignments of Benefits

In recent years, assignment of benefits (AOB) agreements have been problematic in some states, particularly Florida. Unscrupulous contractors have preyed on unsuspecting homeowners and business owners who have suffered water damage . Some contractors work alone while others operate in cahoots with crooked lawyers. In either event, the contractor convinces the policyholder to assign his or her rights under the policy over to the contractor. The contractor then exaggerates the cost of the repairs and collects the inflated amount from the insurer. The policyholder is left with a large claim on his or her loss history. When the policy expires, the insurer may refuse to renew it.

In the previous example, Victor has assigned his rights under the policy to Rapid Restoration. Suppose that Rapid Restoration completes only half of the repair work on Victor's building. The actual cost is $15,000 but the contractor submits a bill to the insurer for $30,000. Alternatively, the contractor never submits a bill but sues the insurer for $30,000. In either case, the insurer may refuse to pay on the basis that the contractor has committed insurance fraud. Victor cannot intervene because he has signed his rights over to the contractor. If the contractor is unsuccessful in its lawsuit against the insurer, it may demand payment from Victor's company.

Avoiding Problems With AOBs

As a business owner, you can avoid problems associated with AOBs and unscrupulous contractors by taking the following steps:

• Report any loss or accident directly to your insurer (or your agent or broker ). Notify your insurer immediately. Don't allow a contractor to do the notification on your behalf.
• Take photos of the damage.
• Don't allow any contractor to begin work until an insurance adjuster has documented the damage
• Vet contractors thoroughly before hiring them. Make sure they are properly licensed. If your area has suffered a natural disaster, watch out for construction scams.
• Don't sign an AOB unless you have reviewed it carefully. If you don't understand it, ask your agent, insurer, or attorney for assistance.
• If your contractor won't do any work until you've signed an AOB, find another contractor.

AOBs in Health Insurance

Assignment of benefit agreements are common in health insurance. Patients are often asked to agree to such clauses before they receive treatment from a physician, hospital, or another healthcare provider. The assignment of benefits clause transfers a patient's right to collect benefits under his or her health policy to the provider. By signing the document, the patent agrees that payments will be made directly to the provider for the services rendered. The clause states that the patient is ultimately responsible for the charges if the insurer fails to pay.

Once the treatment has been performed, the provider submits the AOB along with a claim to the patient's health insurer. The insurer pays the provider for services rendered to the patient.

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

Featured Stories

• Travelers CEO on Q1: ‘We’re Firing On All Cylinders’
• USAA to Lay Off 220 Employees

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 Profit Loss Claims 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.

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

• Field Auto Technical Adjuster – Elyria/Lorain, OH - Elyria, OH
• Enrollment Specialist – Health Insurance Carrier – REMOTE - Remote
• Senior Legal Assistant - Saint Paul, MN
• Underwriter, InsuraMatch - Wall Township, NJ
• Workers’ Compensation Senior Counsel - Rancho Cordova, CA

• How to Sell Yacht Insurance Amidst a Rising Tide
• Squeezed from All Sides: Restaurants Pressured by Labor, Food, Insurance Costs
• Extreme Weather, Cyber Risks Top Concerns When Insuring Farms
• 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

• Coverys Names Farrell Senior Vice President of Claims
• Zurich, Philadelphia, Others Ordered to Pay $345M to Cover Abuse Charges at Georgia School
• Brooklyn Catholic Diocese Settles with New York AG for Mishandling Clergy Sex Abuse Cases
• The Cars of The Future Are Arriving. How Can Auto Insurance Adapt? It's Complicated.
• Survey Shows Majority of Florida, California Homeowners Seeing Higher Insurance Costs

• April 18 Waiting on the Grand Reopening: Business Income Essentials
• April 25 Getting Back to Work: Workers' Comp and the Social Determinants of Health
• May 2 Rules of Engagement in Selling
• May 9 Cannabis and the Homeowners' Policy

• Practical Law

Assignment of insurance policies and claims

Practical law uk practice note w-031-6021  (approx. 19 pages).

• Construction and engineering
• Construction insurance
• Credit, terrorism and political risks
• Cyber insurance
• Directors and officers
• Disputes, investigations and enforcement
• Insurance in commercial transactions
• Insurance intermediaries
• Legal expenses
• Making and dealing with claims
• Reinsurance
• Security, risk management and business continuity

Publications

Indiana supreme court holds assignment of insurance policy rights invalid due to 'consent to assignment' clause in policy.

In an opinion and order dated October 15, 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court held that an insurance policy that contains a provision requiring the insurer’s consent before the policy may be assigned prohibits assignments, but does not prohibit the assignment of a chose in action that is known to the insured at the time of the assignment.

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. U.S. Filter Corp. , Indiana Supreme Court Case No. 49S02-0712-CV-596 (Ind. October 15, 2008), involved at least two unrelated corporations, U.S. Filter and Waste Management, that sought coverage under a number of different occurrence-based liability insurance policies issued to their predecessors. U.S. Filter and Waste Management sought coverage for underlying claims involving exposure to silica from a Wheelabrator blast machine and claimed that they were entitled to coverage under the subject insurance policies as the result of various corporate transactions and assignments.

The subject policies each contained a provision prohibiting assignment without consent of the insurer. The insurers asserted that these provisions precluded U.S. Filter and Waste Management from obtaining rights under the policies through assignment, as their consent was never sought. U.S. Filter and Waste Management claimed that the consent to assignment provisions did not apply because the assignment involved choses in action arising from pre-transfer losses.

The trial court ruled in favor of U.S. Filter, but denied summary judgment to Waste Management.  The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to U.S. Filter and reversed as to Waste Management. The Court of Appeals held that a chose in action arose under the policies at the moment of loss and was freely transferable regardless of the consent to assignment provisions.  

The Indiana Supreme Court examined whether the corporate transaction documents in fact attempted to transfer rights under the insurance policies. As to one transaction that included a general assignment provision, the court ruled that the insurance policies were not transferred because the policies were not specifically identified as an asset to be transferred. Conversely, the court found that Waste Management clearly intended to transfer rights under the insurance policies to U.S. Filter in a subsequent transaction.

However, the Indiana Supreme Court, while acknowledging that some courts have created an exception for assignments that take place after the loss has occurred, held that “for the transfers to succeed, the predecessors must have complied with those policy provisions governing assignment.” The court found that consent to assignment provisions serve a legitimate business purpose because they “protect [insurers] from a material increase in risk for which they did not bargain, specifically because of a change in the nature of the insured.” Following Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. , 62 P.3d 69 (Cal. 2003), the Indiana Supreme Court held that a chose in action is assignable only after a claim has been made:

This rule draws as much from the law on choses in action as from the law on insurance policies. A right not currently held is not a chose in action assignable at law.  It follows that a chose in action only transfers in these circumstances if it is assigned at a moment when the policyholder could have brought its own action against the insurer for coverage. Under the liability policies implicated here, that moment does not arrive until a claim is made against the insured.  Put another way, at a minimum the losses must have been reported to give rise to a chose in action.

Thus, to the extent that the loss had occurred but had not been reported at the time of the attempted transfer of insurance rights, it did not constitute an assignable chose in action. The court further indicated that corporate managers involved in such transactions have other means available to insure against future losses, including indemnification provisions or price negotiations. However, “the assignment of a pre-loss claim, or set of claims, can be just as risky for the insurer as assignment of an entire policy.”   

The impact of this decision is significant. In corporate mergers or acquisitions, corporations often attempt to assign insurance policies, or rights under those policies, to successors of the corporation. The U.S. Filter decision adopts the bright line rule that, where a policy contains a provision prohibiting assignment, the assignment of a chose in action is prohibited where a claim has not been made against the insured. Thus, if an insured attempts to assign rights under a policy before a claim has been made against it, even if the “loss” that may give rise to a claim has already occurred, coverage for that unknown claim is not available to the assignee under Indiana law where the policy contains a consent to assignment provision. This decision also represents the most recent in the line of cases that have followed Henkel and provides the insurer with more certainty and control with respect to the entities to which they may owe coverage.

Plunkett Cooney represented Travelers in this matter with Mary Massaron Ross handling the appeal. Should you have any questions about U.S. Filter , or about the application of consent to assignment clauses in general, please feel free to contact any member of Plunkett Cooney’s Insurance Practice Group.  A practice group directory can be found at www.plunkettcooney.com or call Chuck Browning at (248) 594-6247.

Click here to review the Travelers v. U.S. Filter Corp. opinion.

• Charles W. Browning
• Kenneth C. Newa

Practice Areas

• Insurance Coverage Law

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!

Back to Top

• 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

(c) the subject matter of an insurance policy.

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

(c) notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the insurer.” [95]

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.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Life Insurance
• Definitions

What Is a Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance?

Charlene Rhinehart is a CPA , CFE, chair of an Illinois CPA Society committee, and has a degree in accounting and finance from DePaul University.

A collateral assignment of life insurance is a conditional assignment appointing a lender as an assignee of a policy. Essentially, the lender has a claim to some or all of the death benefit until the loan is repaid. The death benefit is used as collateral for a loan.

The advantage to using a collateral assignee over naming the lender as a beneficiary is that you can specify that the lender is only entitled to a certain amount, namely the amount of the outstanding loan. That would allow your beneficiaries still be entitled to any remaining death benefit.

Lenders commonly require that life insurance serve as collateral for a business loan to guarantee repayment if the borrower dies or defaults. They may even require you to get a life insurance policy to be approved for a business loan.

Key Takeaways

• The borrower of a business loan using life insurance as collateral must be the policy owner, who may or may not be the insured.
• The collateral assignment helps you avoid naming a lender as a beneficiary.
• The collateral assignment may be against all or part of the policy's value.
• If any amount of the death benefit remains after the lender is paid, it is distributed to beneficiaries.
• Once the loan is fully repaid, the life insurance policy is no longer used as collateral.

How a Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance Works

Collateral assignments make sure the lender gets paid only what they are due. The borrower must be the owner of the policy, but they do not have to be the insured person. And the policy must remain current for the life of the loan, with the policy owner continuing to pay all premiums . You can use either term or whole life insurance policy as collateral, but the death benefit must meet the lender's terms.

A permanent life insurance policy with a cash value allows the lender access to the cash value to use as loan payment if the borrower defaults. Many lenders don't accept term life insurance policies as collateral because they do not accumulate cash value.

Alternately, the policy owner's access to the cash value is restricted to protect the collateral. If the loan is repaid before the borrower's death, the assignment is removed, and the lender is no longer the beneficiary of the death benefit.

Insurance companies must be notified of the collateral assignment of a policy. However, other than their obligation to meet the terms of the contract, they are not involved in the agreement.

Example of Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance

For example, say you have a business plan for a floral shop and need a $50,000 loan to get started. When you apply for the loan, the bank says you must have collateral in the form of a life insurance policy to back it up. You have a whole life insurance policy with a cash value of $65,000 and a death benefit of $300,000, which the bank accepts as collateral.

So, you then designate the bank as the policy's assignee until you repay the $50,000 loan. That way, the bank can ensure it will be repaid the funds it lent you, even if you died. In this case, because the cash value and death benefit is more than what you owe the lender, your beneficiaries would still inherit money.

Alternatives to Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance

Using a collateral assignment to secure a business loan can help you access the funds you need to start or grow your business. However, you would be at risk of losing your life insurance policy if you defaulted on the loan, meaning your beneficiaries may not receive the money you'd planned for them to inherit.

Consult with a financial advisor to discuss whether a collateral assignment or one of these alternatives may be most appropriate for your financial situation.

Life insurance loan (policy loan) : If you already have a life insurance policy with a cash value, you can likely borrow against it. Policy loans are not taxed and have less stringent requirements such as no credit or income checks. However, this option would not work if you do not already have a permanent life insurance policy because the cash value component takes time to build.

Surrendering your policy : You can also surrender your policy to access any cash value you've built up. However, your beneficiaries would no longer receive a death benefit.

Other loan types : Finally, you can apply for other loans, such as a personal loan, that do not require life insurance as collateral. You could use loans that rely on other types of collateral, such as a home equity loan that uses your home equity.

What Are the Benefits of Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance?

A collateral assignment of a life insurance policy may be required if you need a business loan. Lenders typically require life insurance as collateral for business loans because they guarantee repayment if the borrower dies. A policy with cash value can guarantee repayment if the borrower defaults.

What Kind of Life Insurance Can Be Used for Collateral?

You can typically use any type of life insurance policy as collateral for a business loan, depending on the lender's requirements. A permanent life insurance policy with a cash value allows the lender a source of funds to use if the borrower defaults. Some lenders may not accept term life insurance policies, which have no cash value. The lender will typically require the death benefit be a certain amount, depending on your loan size.

Is Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance Irrevocable?

A collateral assignment of life insurance is irrevocable. So, the policyholder may not use the cash value of a life insurance policy dedicated toward collateral for a loan until that loan has been repaid.

What is the Difference Between an Assignment and a Collateral Assignment?

With an absolute assignment , the entire ownership of the policy would be transferred to the assignee, or the lender. Then, the lender would be entitled to the full death benefit. With a collateral assignment, the lender is only entitled to the balance of the outstanding loan.

The Bottom Line

If you are applying for life insurance to secure your own business loan, remember you do not need to make the lender the beneficiary. Instead you can use a collateral assignment. Consult a financial advisor or insurance broker who can walk you through the process and explain its pros and cons as they apply to your situation.

Progressive. " Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance ."

Fidelity Life. " What Is a Collateral Assignment of a Life Insurance Policy? "

Kansas Legislative Research Department. " Collateral Assignment of Life Insurance Proceeds ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Policygenius does not allow the submission of personal information by users located within the EU or the UK. If you believe this action is in error, or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]

When you use our links to buy products, we may earn a fee but that in no way affects our editorial independence.

What Is Split-Dollar Life Insurance?

Split-dollar life insurance refers to a permanent life insurance policy held by two parties, usually an employer and employee, who split the premiums and the proceeds of the policy.

Table of Contents

What Is a Split-Dollar Life Insurance Policy?

How does split-dollar life insurance work.

• How Much Does It Cost?

Key Takeaways:

• With a split-dollar life insurance policy, two parties split the cost of the premiums and share the policy benefits.
• Employers may use a split-dollar life insurance policy to attract and retain employees.
• Individuals with high-value estates can purchase a split-dollar life insurance policy to help reduce estate taxes for their beneficiaries.

A split-dollar life insurance policy is a policy wherein two parties share the premium costs as well as the policy benefits. Most often, a split-dollar insurance policy is held between an employer and an employee. Employers sometimes purchase these policies as part of a benefits package to attract and retain high-value employees.

However, they also could provide valuable funds in the event the employee dies. For instance, the funds could add much-needed capital to business operations if a CEO dies, leading to a decrease in stock prices. At the same time, the employee’s portion of the death benefit could aid their family following the loss of their income.

Not as common following a 2003 IRS ruling that said only privately owned companies can loan money to their executives, a split-dollar life insurance policy works in two different ways with regard to the purchase, premiums, any cash value, and the beneficiaries.

Collateral Assignment/Loan Regime

With a collateral assignment/loan regime, the employee owns the policy. This is also sometimes referred to as a leveraged split-dollar plan. The employer loans the premium amount to the employee to pay the premiums. Depending on the terms of the loan, the employee has to pay on taxable income derived from the premium loan. If the employee departs the company or the work agreement expires, the employee repays the loan for the premium costs and owns the policy in its entirety. If the employee dies, the employer receives the loan balance from the death benefit with the remaining going to the beneficiary.

Not all companies can participate in this type of split-dollar life insurance structure as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act made it illegal for a public company to loan money to its executives.

Endorsement Agreement

With an endorsement agreement, the employer owns the policy and the employee chooses the beneficiary. The employer pays the premiums, which are considered taxable income for the employee as is any of the employee’s interest in the policy’s cash value. If the employee leaves the company, the employer can transfer the policy to them or give them the option to purchase it. In the event of the employee’s death, the employer receives either the amount equal to the premiums paid or the policy’s cash value, whichever is greater. The employee’s beneficiary receives the remaining balance of the death benefit.

How Much Does a Split-Dollar Life Insurance Policy Insurance Cost?

As with all insurance policies, there are several factors that determine the cost of a split-dollar life insurance policy. These include:

• Type and amount of coverage. The more purchased, the higher the premiums are.
• The health, age, and gender of the insured . In general, if you are relatively young and healthy you will pay less for the same amount of coverage than someone older and with health issues. Women also typically pay less for life insurance than men.
• Amount of any deferred compensation the employer includes with the policy . 
• The cash value potential of the policy . If the policy allows you to add the cash value to the death benefit, the premiums will be higher than if the cash value is separate from the death benefit.

Find the best life insurance for you

Get free quotes and compare life insurance policies without your contact information.

How Do I Buy Split-Dollar Life Insurance?

When purchasing a split-dollar life insurance policy through an agreement between an employer and employee, both parties need to agree on the type of policy they want. Next, they need to agree on the terms, such as who will own the policy, how long the agreement will last, and who the beneficiaries are. These terms need to be outlined in a written document and signed by both parties.

The employer and employee will complete and sign an application for the life insurance policy. If necessary, the employee will undergo a medical exam. Once the insurance policy application is approved, both parties follow the agreement for payment and management of the split-dollar life insurance policy.

Individuals also have the option to purchase a split-dollar life insurance policy as part of their estate planning. Wealthy individuals can purchase a private split-dollar life insurance policy with the benefits going into a tax-advantaged trust known as an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT). Because an ILIT is not considered part of the estate, taxes will not have to be paid on the funds.

When considering a split-dollar life insurance policy, it’s important to speak to a financial advisor or estate planner to determine if it’s the right choice for your financial future.

Between employers and employees, there are three ways for a split-dollar life insurance agreement to end. The first is if the employee leaves the company, the employer could terminate the agreement. The second is if there is a specified termination date in the agreement. The third is if the employee dies, and the death benefit is disbursed as agreed.

Whether employee-owned or employer-owned, the employee can name the beneficiary of the life insurance policy under a split-dollar life insurance agreement. However, the beneficiaries likely will not receive the entire death benefit of the policy. Under a collateral agreement, the death benefit is first used to repay the loan to the employer for the premiums, with the remaining balance going to the beneficiaries. Under an endorsement agreement, the death benefit is first used to repay the policy premiums or cash value, whichever is greater, to the employer. The remaining balance goes to the beneficiary or beneficiaries.

Both the employer and employee can benefit from a split-dollar life insurance agreement. Employer benefits could include:

• Protecting the company’s finances in the event it loses a high-value employee
• Attracting and retaining quality employees
• Low costs to purchase and maintain 
• Can recoup investment when agreement ends
• Flexibility in plan design to meet employer needs

Potential employee benefits include:

• Employer pays for life insurance premiums
• Employer may pay income tax expenses through a bonus 
• Could receive tax-free income through withdrawals and loans of cash value
• Beneficiaries won’t pay taxes on the death benefit 
• Flexibility in the plan design to tailor to employee needs

The policyholder of a split-dollar insurance agreement depends on the type of agreement made between the employer and the employee. For a collateral agreement, the employee is the policyholder of the agreement. For an endorsement agreement, the employer is the policyholder.

Other Life Insurance Companies

• Banner Life
• Colonial Penn
• Corebridge Financial
• Guardian Life
• John Hancock
• Lincoln Financial Group
• Mutual of Omaha
• New York Life
• Northwestern Mutual
• Pacific Life
• Principal Financial
• Transamerica

Best Life Insurance by State

• Best Life Insurance in Alabama
• Best Life Insurance in Arizona
• Best Life Insurance in California
• Best Life Insurance in Colorado
• Best Life Insurance in Delaware
• Best Life Insurance in Florida
• Best Life Insurance in Georgia
• Best Life Insurance in Illinois
• Best Life Insurance in Indiana
• Best Life Insurance in Kansas
• Best Life Insurance in Massachusetts
• Best Life Insurance in Michigan
• Best Life Insurance in Minnesota
• Best Life Insurance in New York
• Best Life Insurance in Ohio
• Best Life Insurance in Oregon
• Best Life Insurance in Tennessee
• Best Life Insurance in Texas
• Best Life Insurance in Virginia
• Best Life Insurance in Washington
• Best Life Insurance Companies
• Cheapest Life Insurance Companies
• Best Term Life Insurance Companies
• Best Whole Life Insurance Companies
• Best Universal Life Insurance Companies
• Best No-Exam Life Insurance Companies
• Life Insurance Quotes
• What Is Term Life Insurance?
• What Is Whole Life Insurance?
• What Is Universal Life Insurance?
• What Is No Exam Life Insurance?
• How Does Life Insurance Work?
• How to Buy Life Insurance
• Insurance Glossary
• Best Homeowners Insurance Companies
• Best Car Insurance Companies
• Best Motorcycle Insurance Companies
• Best RV Insurance Companies
• Best Renters Insurance Companies
• Best Pet Insurance Companies
• Best Small Business Insurance Companies

Why You Can Trust Us: 28 Life Insurance Companies Researched

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER .

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

• Search for Party Aliases
• Associated Cases
• Case File Location
• Case Summary
• Docket Report
• History/Documents
• Related Transactions
• Check Status

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?

Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions .

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• ALL MOSCOW TOURS
• Getting Russian Visa
• Top 10 Reasons To Go
• Things To Do In Moscow
• Sheremetyevo Airport
• Domodedovo Airport
• Vnukovo Airport
• Airports Transfer
• Layover in Moscow
• Best Moscow Hotels
• Best Moscow Hostels
• Art in Moscow
• Moscow Theatres
• Moscow Parks
• Free Attractions
• Walking Routes
• Sports in Moscow
• Shopping in Moscow
• The Moscow Metro
• Moscow Public Transport
• Taxi in Moscow
• Driving in Moscow
• Moscow Maps & Traffic
• Facts about Moscow – City Factsheet
• Expat Communities
• Groceries in Moscow
• Healthcare in Moscow
• Blogs about Moscow
• Flat Rentals

Healthcare in Moscow – Personal and Family Medicine

Emergency : 112 or 103

Obstetric & gynecologic : +7 495 620-41-70

About medical services in Moscow

Moscow polyclinic

Emergency medical care is provided free to all foreign nationals in case of life-threatening conditions that require immediate medical treatment. You will be given first aid and emergency surgery when necessary in all public health care facilities. Any further treatment will be free only to people with a Compulsory Medical Insurance, or you will need to pay for medical services. Public health care is provided in federal and local care facilities. These include 1. Urban polyclinics with specialists in different areas that offer general medical care. 2. Ambulatory and hospitals that provide a full range of services, including emergency care. 3. Emergency stations opened 24 hours a day, can be visited in a case of a non-life-threatening injury. It is often hard to find English-speaking staff in state facilities, except the largest city hospitals, so you will need a Russian-speaking interpreter to accompany your visit to a free doctor or hospital. If medical assistance is required, the insurance company should be contacted before visiting a medical facility for treatment, except emergency cases. Make sure that you have enough money to pay any necessary fees that may be charged.

Insurance in Russia

Travelers need to arrange private travel insurance before the journey. You would need the insurance when applying for the Russian visa. If you arrange the insurance outside Russia, it is important to make sure the insurer is licensed in Russia. Only licensed companies may be accepted under Russian law. Holders of a temporary residence permit or permanent residence permit (valid for three and five years respectively) should apply for «Compulsory Medical Policy». It covers state healthcare only. An employer usually deals with this. The issued health card is shown whenever medical attention is required. Compulsory Medical Policyholders can get basic health care, such as emergencies, consultations with doctors, necessary scans and tests free. For more complex healthcare every person (both Russian and foreign nationals) must pay extra, or take out additional medical insurance. Clearly, you will have to be prepared to wait in a queue to see a specialist in a public health care facility (Compulsory Medical Policyholders can set an appointment using EMIAS site or ATM). In case you are a UK citizen, free, limited medical treatment in state hospitals will be provided as a part of a reciprocal agreement between Russia and UK.

Some of the major Russian insurance companies are:

Ingosstrakh , Allianz , Reso , Sogaz , AlfaStrakhovanie . We recommend to avoid  Rosgosstrakh company due to high volume of denials.

Moscow pharmacies

A.v.e pharmacy in Moscow

Pharmacies can be found in many places around the city, many of them work 24 hours a day. Pharmaceutical kiosks operate in almost every big supermarket. However, only few have English-speaking staff, so it is advised that you know the generic (chemical) name of the medicines you think you are going to need. Many medications can be purchased here over the counter that would only be available by prescription in your home country.

Dental care in Moscow

Dentamix clinic in Moscow

Dental care is usually paid separately by both Russian and expatriate patients, and fees are often quite high. Dentists are well trained and educated. In most places, dental care is available 24 hours a day.

Moscow clinics

«OAO Medicina» clinic

It is standard practice for expats to visit private clinics and hospitals for check-ups, routine health care, and dental care, and only use public services in case of an emergency. Insurance companies can usually provide details of clinics and hospitals in the area speak English (or the language required) and would be the best to use. Investigate whether there are any emergency services or numbers, or any requirements to register with them. Providing copies of medical records is also advised.

Moscow hosts some Western medical clinics that can look after all of your family’s health needs. While most Russian state hospitals are not up to Western standards, Russian doctors are very good.

Some of the main Moscow private medical clinics are:

American Medical Center, European Medical Center , Intermed Center American Clinic ,  Medsi , Atlas Medical Center , OAO Medicina .

Several Russian hospitals in Moscow have special arrangements with GlavUPDK (foreign diplomatic corps administration in Moscow) and accept foreigners for checkups and treatments at more moderate prices that the Western medical clinics.

Medical emergency in Moscow

Moscow ambulance vehicle

In a case of a medical emergency, dial 112 and ask for the ambulance service (skoraya pomoshch). Staff on these lines most certainly will speak English, still it is always better to ask a Russian speaker to explain the problem and the exact location.

Ambulances come with a doctor and, depending on the case, immediate first aid treatment may be provided. If necessary, the patient is taken to the nearest emergency room or hospital, or to a private hospital if the holder’s insurance policy requires it.

Our Private Tours in Moscow

Moscow metro & stalin skyscrapers private tour, moscow art & design private tour, soviet moscow historical & heritage private tour, gastronomic moscow private tour, «day two» moscow private tour, layover in moscow tailor-made private tour, whole day in moscow private tour, all-in-one moscow essential private tour, tour guide jobs →.

Every year we host more and more private tours in English, Russian and other languages for travelers from all over the world. They need best service, amazing stories and deep history knowledge. If you want to become our guide, please write us.

Contact Info

+7 495 166-72-69

[email protected]

119019 Moscow, Russia, Filippovskiy per. 7, 1

Mon - Sun 10.00 - 18.00

• 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

• Privacy Dashboard

Moscow City Council questions, then passes library resolution

Mar. 5—A city of Moscow resolution supporting the Latah County Library District sparked debate during Monday's City Council meeting before ultimately being passed by the councilors.

Moscow joined four other Idaho cities — Blackfoot, Shelley, Firth and Aberdeen — that have created similar resolutions supporting libraries. Moscow City Supervisor Bill Belknap said Friday it is a response to recent efforts in the Idaho Legislature to police library materials that Idaho lawmakers view as harmful to minors.

The resolution states that the city provides "its support and full confidence in the Board of Trustees and Library Director of the Latah County Library District ... to provide appropriate access to print and electronic reading materials suitable to patrons regardless of age."

Several councilors, while expressing their support for the library district, also shared their hesitation in passing such a resolution.

Councilor Julia Parker said it is odd for the council to pass a partisan resolution and wondered why the council does not take similar actions for other issues like women's rights and LGBTQ-related issues.

Councilor Hailey Lewis supported the resolution, but expressed fear Moscow will see retribution from the Idaho Legislature if it's passed.

Councilor Drew Davis said he would prefer to have hard face-to-face conversations with lawmakers instead, because he believes a resolution is too easy for them to ignore.

"To me this is doing something without having the hard conversation," he said.

Davis was the only councilor to vote against the resolution.

Councilor Sandra Kelly said the city should not be afraid of retribution, and should pass the resolution to show the city stands by its library.

"I want them to know that they do have our full support and confidence," she said.

Belknap said Monday the city does not operate the Moscow Public Library, which is part of the Latah County Library District, but it does financially support the library building.

Kuipers can be reached at [email protected] .

Recommended Stories

Wnba draft winners and losers: as you may have guessed, the fever did pretty well. the liberty perhaps not.

Here are five franchises who stood out, for better or for worse.

Yankees pitcher Fritz Peterson, infamous for trading wives with a teammate, dies at 82

Former New York Yankees left-hander Fritz Peterson died at the age of 82. He is probably best known exchanging wives with teammate Mike Kekich in the 1970s.

Boban Marjanović hilariously misses free throws on purpose to give Clippers fans free chicken

Boban Marjanović is a man of the people.

Robert Kraft reportedly warned Falcons owner Arthur Blank not to trust Bill Belichick during head coach interviews

Bill Belichick's former boss Robert Kraft reportedly tanked his chances of getting hired as the Falcons head coach.

UFC 300: 'We're probably gonna get sued' after Arman Tsarukyan appeared to punch fan during walkout

'We'll deal with that Monday,' Dana White said about Arman Tsarukyan appearing to punch a fan during his UFC 300 walkout.

Rob Gronkowski's first pitch before the Red Sox's Patriots' Day game was typical Gronk

Never change, Gronk.

Nike responds to backlash over Team USA track kits, notes athletes can wear shorts

The new female track uniform looked noticeably skimpy at the bottom in one picture, which social media seized upon.

Trump Media stock jumps for second day as company goes to battle with short sellers

Trump Media is advising investors on ways to prevent their shares from being loaned for a short-interest position.

2024 Masters payouts: How much did Scottie Scheffler earn for his win at Augusta National?

The Masters has a record $20 million purse this year.

MLB Power Rankings: Braves, Yankees surge to the top, followed by Dodgers, Orioles, Brewers

Let's identify one player exceeding expectations for each team through the first few weeks of 2024.

76ers' statue for Allen Iverson draws jokes, outrage due to misunderstanding: 'That was disrespectful'

Iverson didn't get a life-size statue. Charles Barkley and Wilt Chamberlain didn't either.

Former Augusta National Golf Club employee charged with stealing millions in Masters memorabilia

The former employee was a warehouse coordinator in charge of Masters memorabilia.

Report: The Toyota Highlander is going all-electric

Recent reports point to a new Highlander EV and plug-in versions of Toyota's trucks.

TechCrunch Minute: New Atlas robot stuns experts in first reveal from Boston Dynamics

This week Boston Dynamics retired its well-known Atlas robot that was powered by hydraulics. Then today it unveiled its new Atlas robot, which is powered by electricity. The change might not seem like much, but TechCrunch's Brian Heater told the TechCrunch Minute that the now-deprecated hydraulics system was out of date.

Caitlin Clark reportedly close to 8-figure deal with Nike that includes signature shoe

Clark's endorsement deal with Nike is set to dwarf her WNBA salary.

LSU transfer Hailey Van Lith reportedly headed to TCU

Hailey Van Lith is transferring to TCU after an uneven year at LSU.

How Victor Wembanyama's rookie season ranks in NBA history

Victor Wembanyama's rookie NBA season is finished. The San Antonio Spurs will sit him in Sunday's regular-season finale. Where does his first season rank among the league's greats?

The Scorecard: 10 fantasy baseball hot takes to know through two weeks

Fantasy baseball analyst Dalton Del Don debuts The Scorecard, a weekly series featuring his takes on key MLB player notes.

Mock Draft Monday with Daniel Jeremiah: Bears snag Odunze, Raiders grab a QB

It's another edition of 'Mock Draft Monday' on the pod and who better to have on then the face of NFL Network's draft coverage and a giant in the industry. Daniel Jeremiah joins Matt Harmon to discuss his mock draft methodology, what he's hearing about this year's draft class and shares his favorite five picks in his latest mock draft.

Tesla layoffs hit high performers, some departments slashed, sources say

Tesla management told employees Monday that the recent layoffs -- which gutted some departments by 20% and even hit high performers -- were largely due to poor financial performance, a source familiar with the matter told TechCrunch. The layoffs were announced to staff just a week before Tesla is scheduled to report its first-quarter earnings. The move comes as Tesla has seen its profit margin narrow over the past several quarters, the result of an EV price war that has persisted for at least a year.

Watch CBS News

We may receive commissions from some links to products on this page. Promotions are subject to availability and retailer terms.

What is a long-term care insurance cash policy?

By Joshua Rodriguez

Edited By Matt Richardson , Angelica Leicht

April 16, 2024 / 12:46 PM EDT / CBS News

Have you thought about purchasing  long-term care insurance ? With  most American retirees needing long-term care  at some point in their retirement, it's important to plan for the cost of that care. And that  care isn't cheap . Though long-term care insurance can help cover that cost , different policy types may do so in different ways. 

With more than one type of long-term care insurance to choose from, it's important that you purchase a policy that meets your needs . And, if you're looking for a policy that gives you the most flexibility in the types of care you receive and how your benefits are used, a long-term care insurance cash policy may be what you're looking for. But what exactly is a long-term care insurance cash policy and how does this policy differ from traditional long-term care insurance options?

Compare your long-term care insurance coverage options now . 

Long-term care insurance cash policies, also commonly called cash benefit policies, cash indemnity policies or cash disability policies, are a form of long-term care insurance that provides a predetermined daily or monthly cash benefit while the insured party is in need of care (up to the policy's coverage cap).

Traditional policies typically either pay qualified care providers (like nursing homes or home health aides) directly or reimburse you for the money you pay to those providers. Since long-term care insurance cash policies pay a set amount of cash per day or per month when you need long-term care, you have more flexibility in determining the type of care you'll use your benefits to pay for.  

Find out how affordable a long-term care insurance cash benefit policy can be now . 

How does a long-term care insurance cash policy work?

Long-term care insurance cash policies work just like traditional long-term care insurance policies in many ways. When you purchase either type, your premiums and ability to qualify will be affected by your age, health status and other factors relating to the risk the insurance company accepts when writing your policy. Both of these policies also help pay for the high cost of long-term care if you need it. 

However, there are also significant differences to think about. 

Most traditional long-term care insurance policies either reimburse you for the cost of your long-term care or pay your care providers directly. However, long-term care insurance policies with cash benefits usually pay the policyholder a preset cash amount for each day they meet the benefit trigger (whether they receive paid care or not on those days). That's an important difference for a few reasons. 

"Cash indemnity benefits in LTC insurance policies provide a tremendous amount of flexibility and simplicity at claim time versus reimbursement benefits," explains Kelly Augspurger, CLTC, CSA, and trainer for Certification for Long-Term Care, a firm that provides certifications for long-term care insurance agents. 

That flexibility is especially important for those who want to age at home and depend on informal caregivers  (like family members or friends). "With cash benefits, you can pay whoever you want: family members, friends, neighbors, professionals, etc. Heck, you can even pay robots in the future, if they provide care! This means you have the flexibility to pay formal and informal caregivers," says Augspurger. 

Long-term care insurance policies with cash benefits may make it easier to receive your benefits, too. "Cash benefits also simplify receiving benefits because they send you your full monthly benefit, regardless of care expenses, and don't ask for evidence of your care expenses," Augspurger says. 

Also, a cash benefit policy could provide supplemental retirement income beyond the cost of your long-term care. For example, say your monthly insurance benefit is $6,000, but you only need $5,000 per month in care. "With cash benefits, the insurance company will send you the full $6k," says Augspurger. "However, reimbursement policies will only reimburse up to your monthly benefit. In the example above, the insurance company will only reimburse you $5k."

So, in the above example, a cash benefit long-term care insurance policy could add $1,000 in supplemental income to your monthly budget once a long-term care event takes place. 

Then again, there are a couple of caveats to consider before you choose a cash benefit long-term care insurance policy: 

• Policies with cash benefits may have higher premiums than reimbursement policies. 
• You may have to pay income tax  on any cash benefit you receive that you don't use to pay for qualified long-term care services. 

The bottom line

Choosing between a cash benefit and traditional long-term care insurance policy can be difficult. While cash benefit policies may be more expensive and can come with tax implications, they usually give you far more flexibility in how your benefits can be used than traditional policies. If you're not sure which policy type is right for you, reach out to a long-term care insurance professional now to discuss your options .

Joshua Rodriguez is a personal finance and investing writer with a passion for his craft. When he's not working, he enjoys time with his wife, two kids, two dogs and two ducks.

More from CBS News

Long-term care insurance: Why those in their 70s should act now

Is long-term care insurance worth it for seniors in their 70s? Experts weigh in

7 best bank account bonuses for April 2024 (up to $600)

Here's how much you'd save by using a home equity loan