Sutherland

  • William B. Harman, Jr., not a member of the Society, is a partner in Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
    • 1981 - SOA - Universal Life (RSA81V7N412), Moderator: Samuel H. Turner, Ben H. Mitchell, Society of Actuaries - 16p 
  • Paul J. Mason, not a member of the Society, is a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm Of Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennen.
    • 1983 - SOA - Flexible Premium Variable Life, Society of Actuaries - 20p
      • .... not a member of the Society, is a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennen.
      • Before joining Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan in 1981, Paul was Chief Counsel, Securities, for the American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI).
      • Prior to that, he was with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where he held positions in the Division of Corporate Regulation and the Division of Trading and Markets. Paul will cover the regulatory aspects of the product, focusing mainly on the SEC.
  • Steve Roth
  • Phillip E. Stano
    • 2010 - LC - Blumenthal v. New York Life  ---  [BonkNote]
    • Defense Attorney for New York Life, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan
  • 2010 - LC - Blumenthal vs. New York Life  ---  [BonkNote]
    • Sutherland Legal Alert:
      • 2010 0930 - Sutherland - re: Blumenthal vs New York Life - Court Rejects Suit Alleging Fraud and Negligent Design in the Sale of Universal Life Insurance Policies - 2p
      • 2011 1129 - Sutherland - re: Blumenthal vs New York Life - Illustration Disclosures Lead to Dismissal of Universal Life Insurance Class Action - 2p
  • For a good summary of the development of the NAIC Model Variable Life Regulation, Rule 6e-2 and the state and federal issues associated with variable life insurance, I would refer you to a Connecticut Law Review article written by Paul Mason and Steve Roth of the Washington law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan.
    • That article, entitled "SEC Regulation of Life Insurance Products - On the Brink of the Universal," appeared in Volume 15, No. 3, the Spring 1983 issue
  • Although my company decided to develop a traditional universal life policy after looking at the NAIC Variable Life Regulation and Rule 6e-2, we joined two groups in late 1981, which had been formed to change the NAIC regulation and Rule 6e-2.
  • An ad hoc group of approximately thirty companies worked with the Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan law firm on this project, an American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI) task force of fifteen companies was also formed to consider changes to those regulations.

--  William A. Stoltzman, Associate General Counsel at IDS Life Insurance Company

1985 - SOA - Variable Universal Life Insurance, Society of Actuaries - 22p

  • The Hutton ruling covered policyholder tax issues.
    • [Bonk: Hutton = EF Hutton, Hutton Life]
  • The first issue was whether or not the death benefits qualified under Section 101 of the Internal Revenue Code.
    • That section is one that simply says that benefits from life insurance contracts are not income to the beneficiary.
    • The revenue service raised the question," was the universal life design a side fund with term insurance, or was it like the traditional life insurance contract where the cash value is an integral part of the overall life insurance contract?"
    • They decided it was an integrated contract, and that it would qualify under Section 101.
  • The second issue was whether there was any constructive receipt of the interest credited to the policy.
    • Since this policy was viewed by the Revenue Service as essentially the same as traditional life insurance, they ruled that there was no constructive receipt.
    • The Revenue Service issued the Hutton ruling in January. It is interesting to note that they issued another similar ruling in May, 1981, where the death benefit was the face amount, or the cash value plus the lesser of 5% of the cash value or $50,000. 
  • The 818(c) election is another issue that is being looked at by the Service.
    • In the Hutton ruling, the Service specifically took a caveat indicating that they were saying nothing with respect to this issue.
    • One question that was discussed briefly was what was the plan of insurance?
      • How do you know whether you have a permanent policy that qualifies for $21 per thousand, or a term policy that qualifies for $5, or perhaps some that qualifies for nothing.
      • That is an unanswered question.

--  William B. Harman, not a member of the Society, is a partner in Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan

1981 - SOA - Universal Life, Society of Actuaries - 16p