ABA – American Bar Association

  • 2021 Spring – ABA-Litigation – Demonstrative Evidence: Tell and Show, by Jennifer L. Keller and Chase A. Scolnick, American Bar Association, VOL. 47 NO. 3 – p43-48 – 68p
    • [Bonk: What Lawsuit is this example from?]
    • (p44) – Trial counsel used the following graphic in a bellwether trial challenging an insurer’s products:

    • The plaintiffs had purchased low-cost term life policies but demanded benefits provided only with more expensive insurance products. The defendant’s counsel explained to the jury that those plaintiffs shouldn’t get something for which they hadn’t paid. Because the jurors weren’t familiar with the differences among various life insurance products, counsel analogized the types of policies to automobiles.
    • The graphic likened the plaintiffs term policy to a Toyota Corolla and a more expensive whole life policy to a Mercedes Benz. The images were immediately recognizable, resonated with the jurors, and attacked the plaintiffs’ argument. Even jurors unfamiliar with life insurance policies understood the argument that it was unfair and unreasonable for those plaintiffs to expect “a Mercedes” when they paid for “a Corolla” instead.
  • 2021 06 – ABA Taxing Times – 56p 
    • p24 / 26 – 27 See Turnham v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 979 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020). These listed transactions “typically are invested in variable life or universal life insurance on the lives of the covered employees.” 1995-1 C.B. 309.
    • A universal life insurance policy is a quasi-insurance product in which the premiums partly fund death benefits and partly accumulate and earn interest to fund future benefits for the covered person. See Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 917, 920-21 (11th Cir. 2019).
    • While the investment scheme here did not use universal life insurance products in the literal sense, there really isn’t any difference in practical effect.
    • The combination of a term life policy with a separate (and much larger) annuity product provided the same generous excess of funds that a universal life policy would itself provide.
    • And, there is no dispute that a welfare plan using a universal life policy would likely not be exempt and the contributions thereto would likely not be fully deductible. …
    • We find here, however, that as a matter of law the subject Plan is at a minimum “substantially similar” to the listed transaction in the IRS Notice, such that the Appellants were required to disclose their participation in it, as IRS regulations dictated. Because they failed to do so, the IRS properly issued the penalties against them. Id. at 1325-26.
  • 1982 – ABA – Trial Tactics in Defending Life Insurers, by Mark F. Hughes Jr., American Bar Association, The Forum Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law), Vol. 17, No. 4 – p1081-1090 – 10p 
  • 1982 – ABA – Universal Life Insurance: Legal, Regulatory and Actuarial Aspects, by Alan Lazarescu and Harold Leff – Metropolitan Life, American Bar Association, The Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4 – 13p 
  • 1985 02 – ABA Journal – Universal Life Insurance: How It Works, by Randall L. Shaw, American Bar Association, Vol. 71, No. 2, p68-70 – 4p
  • Book – Fundamentals of Insurance Regulation, Chapter 1 (The Insurance Industry) – 15p
  • archive.org///sim_tort-trial-insurance-practice-law-journal_1981-1982_17_index.pdf
    • 1982 – ABA – Agent Professionalism under ERISA, by Peter B. Prestley, The Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4, Spring, p. 1108.
    • 1982 – ABA – The Exposure of Life Insurance Agents to Liability for Their Acts and Omissions, by James H. Douds, The Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4, Spring, p. 1091.
    • 1982 – ABA – Universal Life Insurance: Legal, Regulatory and Actuarial Aspects, by Alan Lazarescu and Harold Leff, The Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4, – 13p