Absurd

  • An insured has no right to rely upon an agent’s patently absurd interpretation of a policy.
  • He ordinarily may rightfully rely, however, upon an agent’s interpretation that is plausible and not in patent conflict with the printed policy although legally untenable.
  • 1963 0424 – LC – Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. *403 v. Bailey, 5 Storey 215, 55 Del. 215, 190 A.2d 757, Supreme Court of Delaware – [link]

1969 1128 – LC – Bayer v. Lutheran Mutual Life Insurance Company – 172 N.W.2d 400 – 184 Neb. 826 – No. 37329. – Supreme Court of Nebraska. – [link-Justia]

  • “does not involve an absurdity” “life insurance”
  • 1871-1, NAIC Proceedings – 233p – Absurd – 11 times
  • 1871-2, NAIC Proceedings – 657p – Absurd – 15 times
  • Speaking before state insurance commissioners at the Washington Hilton Hotel or what each called the “Equity Fundings fiasco,” Fred A. Mauck, Illinois’ newly named director of insurance, said that because of the “hard work” of state regulators Equity Funding was “not a tragedy but an absurdity.”
    • “Quite frankly,” he said, “it raises a troublesome, but entirely proper, question as to the effectiveness of insurance regulation.” 

1973 0605 – NYT – Insurance Commissioners Plan Surveillance Study – Equity Funding Corporation of America, by Robert J. Cole, Special to The New York Times – [link]

  • (p16) – Willis B. Howard, Jr. (NOLHGA – National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations):
    • I’d like to respond briefly to my honorable friend, Commissioner Bartlett.
    • Dwight, the guarantee association system works, and it works well.
  • Dwight K. Bartlett III, Maryland Insurance Commissioner:
    • Are you going to tell me, Bill, in all honesty that you really believe that the policyholders of Executive Life and Mutual Benefit Life have been well-served?
    • For example, with Mutual Benefit, if you opted out of that rehabilitation plan you get, as I recall, 55 cents on the dollar of your account value.
      • If you opt into the plan, you agreed to subject yourself to a moratorium period, which means you do not get full access to the cash values of your policy until the next century.
    • Are you going to say that’s meaningful coverage for those policyholders?
    • ⇒  I think that’s ridiculous.

1994 – SOA – VASP – Introduction and Overview: Current Activities of NAIC’s Life and Health Actuarial Task Force, VASP941 – Society of Actuaries – 110p

  • 2008 0809 – NYT – Naked Came the Speculators, By Gretchen Morgenson – [link]
    • Still, Mr. Dinallo said, the valuations of C.D.S.’s remain absurdly optimistic on both the books of the bond insurers who wrote them and the companies who bought them.
      • As regulator in this particular poker game, he gets to see both parties’ hands.
  • (p528-529) – Senator Howard METZENBAUM (D-OH) – The NAIC proposal also requires that policyholders be given the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the company that will be assuming the business.
    • We have heard testimony here about the financial health of LACOP when Security Benefit transferred to them.
    • Do you think that giving policyholders phone numbers and addresses of the insurers gives them enough tools to make a knowledgeable decision about a transfer? 
  • Joeseph BELTH (Professor, Indiana University) Hardly.
  • Senator METZENBAUM. You pick up the phone and you call.
    • Mr. Company, are you in sound financial condition?
      • You get some secretary who answers the phone.
    • Do you think that really gives them much protection?
  • Mr. BELTH. No, no, sir.
  • Senator METZENBAUM. It is rather absurd, isn’t it?
  • Mr. Belth. I was going to say absurd, but I would rather just say no.
  • Senator METZENBAUM. I will say absurd.

[Both Dates PDF-629p-GooglePlay, 0428-VIDEO-? / 0505-VIDEO-CSPAN-Insurance Policy Transfers]