Disability Law

Spencer v. Hartford - 6

By Patrick Hindert

Why and when should defendants, and/or their insurance companies and/or their reinsurance companies, ever agree to fund a structured settlement using either a "buy and hold" strategy or an "IRC section 130 qualified assignment" - as opposed to paying cash or using an IRC section 468B Qualified Settlement Fund?

The traditional answer from the structured settlement industry: you, the defendant, save money using structured settlements - and you face no future risk (or almost no future risk) so long as you use IRC section 130 qualified assignments.

How does this traditional answer square with the recent Spencer v. Hartford class action lawsuit and proposed class action lawsuit settlement?

What are the most important lessons for defendants, and their insurers and reinsurers, from the proposed Spencer v. Hartford settlement?

For prior S2KM reporting about Spencer v. Hartford, see S2KM's blog post Spencer v. Hartford - 5.

Full post as published by Beyond Structured Settlements on May 17, 2010 (boomark / email).