Structured
Settlements
A structured settlement is a financial or insurance arrangement,
including periodic payments, that a claimant accepts to resolve
a personal injury tort claim or to compromise a statutory periodic
payment obligation. Structured settlements were first utilized
in Canada and the United States during the 1970s as an alternative
to lump sum settlements. Structured settlements are now part
of the statutory tort law of several common law countries including:
Australia, Canada, England and the United States. Although some
uniformity exists, each of these countries has its own definitions,
rules and standards for structured settlement. Structured settlements
may include income tax and spendthrift requirements as well
as benefits. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called
“periodic payments”. A structured settlement incorporated into
a trial judgment is called a “periodic payment judgment”.
The United States has enacted structured settlement laws
and regulations at both the federal and state levels. Federal
structured settlement laws include sections of the Federal Internal
Revenue Code. State structured settlement laws include structured
settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment
statutes. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations impact
structured settlements. To preserve a claimant’s Medicare and
Medicaid benefits, structured settlement payments may be incorporated
into “Medicare Set Aside Arrangements” the “Special Needs Trusts”.
Definitions
The United States definition of “structured settlement” for
Federal income taxation purposes, found in Internal Revenue
Code Section 5891(c)(1), is an "arrangement" that
meets the following requirements:
A structured settlement must be established by:
- A suit or agreement for periodic payment of damages
excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code
Section 104(a)(2); or
- An agreement for the periodic payment of compensation
under any workers’ compensation law excludable under Internal
Revenue Code Section 104(a)(1); and
- The periodic payments must be of the character described
in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Internal Revenue Code Section
130(c)(2) and must be payable by a person who:
- Is a party to the suit or agreement or to a workers'
compensation claim; or
- By a person who has assumed the liability for such periodic
payments under a Qualified Assignment in accordance with
Internal Revenue Code Section 130.
Legal Structure
The typical structured settlement arises and is structured
as follows: An injured party (the claimant) settles a tort suit
with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a
settlement agreement that provides that, in exchange for the
claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, the defendant
(or, more commonly, its insurer) agrees to make a series of
periodic payments over time. The insurer, a property/casualty
insurance company, thus finds itself with a long-term payment
obligation to the claimant. To fund this obligation, the property/casualty
insurer generally takes one of two typical approaches: It either
purchases an annuity from a life insurance company (an arrangement
called a "buy and hold" case) or it assigns (or, more
properly, delegates) its periodic payment obligation to a third
party which in turn purchases an annuity (which arrangement
is called an "assigned case").
In an unassigned case, the property/casualty insurer retains
the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an
annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its
obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased
under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the
periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The
property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant
as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity
issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. If any of
the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e., the obligation
to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be
alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the
measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life
under the annuity.
In an assigned case, the property/casualty company does not
wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on
its books. Accordingly, the property/casualty insurer transfers
the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment,
to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company,
will require the property/casualty company to pay it an amount
sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its
newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant
consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation
(either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special
form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment
and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company
has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This
method of substituting the obliger is desirable for property/casualty
companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation
on their books. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate
of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.
An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies
the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130
[1]. Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment
companies because without it the amount they receive to induce
them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered
income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies
under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded
from the income of the assignment company. This provision of
the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without
it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but
would typically have no source from which to make the payments.
Return to Hot Topics Menu Source: Wikipedia
|