WARNING! This form permanently transfers ownership of your FEGLI insurance to another individual, trustee, or corporation (however, premiums continue to be withheld from your salary/annuity). An assignment is irrevocable, and cannot be changed later. DO NOT USE THIS FORM if you only wish to designate a beneficiary to receive your life insurance. Instead, use the available designation of beneficiary form .
For more information about assignments and designations of beneficiary, see the FEGLI Booklet on Assignments , and Designation of Beneficiary and Order of Precedence .
FEGLI enrollees use this form to assign ownership of their life insurance coverage to another person, firm, or trust; and assignees use the form to reassign the coverage.
RI 76-10
Request a paper copy of this form from your servicing Human Resources Office.
Try refreshing the page. For help, call 1-800-WESTLAW (1-800-937-8529).
Return to home
In the settlement of lawsuits involving insured claims, it is not uncommon that one condition of the settlement is that the defendant assign his or her claims under all applicable insurance policies to the party that filed suit.
Indeed, it is frequently the case that the defendant, particularly when the defendant is an individual, has a limited ability to pay a judgment and insurance coverage offers the best opportunity for a recovery by the suing party. Usually, such settlements are made without any serious thought being given to whether the defendant’s claim against its insurer is assignable; the assumption being that it is assignable.
However, insurance policies generally have anti-assignment clauses which prohibit the assignment of the policy, or an interest in the policy, without the insurer’s consent. These clauses come into play in determining the validity or enforceability of the assignment of a claim under an insurance policy and should be considered when such an assignment is part of a settlement.
When considering the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses in insurance policies, the courts generally draw a distinction between an assignment made prior to the occurrence of a covered loss (a “pre-loss” assignment) and an assignment made after the occurrence of a covered loss (a “post-loss” assignment).
In analyzing pre-loss assignments, the courts recognize that requiring an insurer to provide coverage to an assignee of its policy prior to the occurrence of a covered loss would place the insurer in the position of covering a party with whom it had not contracted nor been allowed to properly underwrite to assess the risks posed by that potential insured, and, accordingly, determine the appropriate premium to charge for the risks being undertaken or choose to decline coverage.
Post-loss assignments, on the other hand, take place after the insurer’s obligations under its policy have become fixed by the occurrence of a covered loss, thus the risk factors applicable to the assignee are irrelevant with regard to the covered loss in question. For these reasons, the majority of the courts enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict pre-loss assignments, but refuse to enforce anti-assignment clauses to prohibit or restrict post-loss assignments.
Katrina Cases
The Louisiana Supreme Court, which had not previously addressed the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses for post-loss assignments, was recently confronted with this issue in the In re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, litigation involving consolidated cases arising out of Hurricane Katrina. The issue arose as a result of a lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana as the assignee of claims under numerous insurance policies as part of the “Road Home” Program. The Road Home Program was set up following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to distribute federal funds to homeowners suffering damage from the hurricanes. In return for receiving a grant of up to $150,000, homeowners were required to execute a Limited Subrogation/Assignment agreement, which provided in pertinent part:
Pursuant to these Limited Subrogation/Assignments, the State of Louisiana brought suit against more than 200 insurance companies to recover funds dispensed under the Road Home Program. The suit was removed to Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act and the insurers filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the assignments to the State of Louisiana were invalid under the anti-assignment clauses in the homeowner policies at issue.
On appeal, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the Louisiana Supreme Court: “Does an anti-assignment clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, which by its plain terms purports to bar any assignment of the policy or an interest therein without the insurer’s consent, bar an insured’s post-loss assignment of the insured’s claims under the policy when such an assignment transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due?”
In answering this question, the Louisiana Supreme Court began by noting that, as a general matter, contractual rights are assignable unless the law, the contract terms or the nature of the contract preclude assignment. Specific to the certified question, Louisiana Civil Code article 2653 provides that a right “cannot be assigned when the contract from which it arises prohibits the assignment of that right.” The Louisiana Supreme Court observed that the language of article 2653 is broad and, on its face, applies to all assignments, including post-loss assignments of insurance claims. The Court, therefore, construed the issue confronting it as whether Louisiana public policy would enforce an anti-assignment clause to preclude post-loss assignments of claims under insurance policies.
In addressing the public policy question, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the distinction between pre-loss assignments and post-loss assignments discussed by courts from other states and noted that the prevailing view was that anti-assignment clauses were invalid and/or unenforceable when applied to post-loss assignments. Notwithstanding this weight of authority, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:
“[W]hile the Louisiana legislature has clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to assign contractual rights, by enacting La. C.C. art. 2653, it has also clearly indicated an intent to allow parties freedom to contractually prohibit assignment of rights. We recognize the vast amount of national jurisprudence distinguishing between pre-loss and post-loss assignments and rejecting restrictions on post-loss assignments, however we find no public policy in Louisiana favoring assignability of claims over freedom of contract.”
Thus, Court refused to invalidate the enforceability of the anti-assignment clauses to the post-loss assignments before it based on public policy, adding that public policy determinations are better suited to the legislature.
Nonetheless, after having recognized the general enforceability of anti-assignment clauses to post-loss assignments, the Court immediately placed limits on when those clauses would be applicable, stating that to be applicable, they “must clearly and unambiguously express that the non-assignment clause applies to post-loss assignments.” The Court refused “to formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words,” which would satisfy this condition and remanded the case to the federal courts to determine whether the individual anti-assignment clauses in the various policies were sufficiently clear and explicit to be enforced with respect to post-loss assignments at issue.
A Broad Application
It should be noted that the Court’s opinion appears to apply broadly to all post-loss assignments irrespective of what specific rights are being assigned, despite the fact that the certified question was narrower and asked only about the applicability of a post-loss assignment where the assignment “transfers contractual obligations, not just the right to money due.”
In a footnote at the beginning of its opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that in certifying the question to it, the Fifth Circuit “disclaimed any intent” that the Court “confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the legal questions certified.” The footnote indicates that the Court’s opinion was not intended to be limited to only those post-loss assignments involving the assignment of contractual obligations.
Louisiana has departed from the majority view in holding that as a matter of general law, anti-assignment clauses are not inherently void with regard to post-loss assignments. However, it may be that in practical application, the results of individual cases may well be consistent with the majority rule of not enforcing anti-assignment clauses with regard to post-loss assignments because Louisiana courts may be reluctant to find that the anti-assignment clauses are sufficiently “clear and explicit” unless they specifically state that they apply to post-loss assignments, notwithstanding the Louisiana Supreme Court’s unwillingness to “formulate a test consisting of specific terms or words.”
Topics Lawsuits Carriers Profit Loss Claims Louisiana Hurricane Homeowners
Was this article valuable?
Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.
Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
From this issue.
Interested in carriers .
Get automatic alerts for this topic.
Assignment of Benefits forms, also known as AOBs, play a crucial role in the restoration industry’s contractor-client dynamics. These legal documents empower policyholders to transfer their insurance policy benefits to a third party, effectively connecting their restoration contractor directly to their insurance company. By doing so, policyholders can bypass many of the complications and anxieties typically associated with a restoration project, streamlining the process.
According to Josh Ehmke, Co-owner and General Consult at One Claim Solution , there’s a common misunderstanding between assignment of benefits and assignment of policy. An assignment of policy refers to the transfer of the benefits and rights of an insurance policy from one party (the policyholder) to another party (the assignee).
“An assignment of policy is never going to be valid. In fact, I haven’t come across a state that allows an assignment of an insurance policy without the insurance company’s prior written consent,” Josh said. “The reason it’s not allowed is because it’s against public policy. It increases the insurance risk substantially.”
For example, a policyholder might have a history of filing numerous claims against their insurance provider, suggesting a pattern that they might be well-versed in exploiting certain loopholes and taking advantage of insurance companies. Additionally, there are concerns that they may not adequately maintain or safeguard their property, leading to an increased risk for the insurance company.
“That is absolutely different from an assignment of benefits, which grants the rights the policyholder had to the payment under the policy to be transferred to the assignee,” Josh said. ”The only prerequisite for an assignment of benefits other than having a covered claim, is that the loss has already occurred. If you get an assignment of benefits before the loss occurs, that’s essentially a transfer of a policy.”
OCS recently encountered a case where the question arose regarding the scope of an assignment of benefits. Specifically, the issue was whether only the rights of the policyholder are transferred, or if the policyholder’s obligations are also transferred alongside the benefits under the assignment.
“By taking the assignment, the contractor doesn’t assume the policyholder’s obligations under that policy,” Josh said. “It’s very important to word your assignment of benefits appropriately to clearly state that you’re not agreeing to assume any of those policy obligations, and to specify which rights you want.”
Direction to pay (DTP) is a financial arrangement where the policyholder, who is entitled to receive an insurance claim payment, instructs the insurance company to pay the claim proceeds directly to a third party. This third party could be a vendor, contractor, service provider, or any other entity to whom the policyholder owes a debt or has entered into an agreement.
“The issue with direction to pay is that the carrier doesn’t have to honor it because it’s not enforceable,” Josh said. “It’s very limited in what it can do, whereas an assignment of benefits is much more powerful because it obligates the insurance company legally to pay you.”
According to Josh, DTP’s are rarely used, except in states like Texas and Florida where AOBs are detrimental to contractors or illegal.
“A DTP is better than nothing and allows you to at least show the carrier that the homeowner granted approval to request payment,” Josh said. “But outside of those situations, the direction to pay in my mind is worthless. When you can have an assignment of benefits, there’s no reason to have a direction to pay at all.”
Understanding the differences between an AOB, Assignment of Policy, and DTP is crucial because each term represents distinct legal and financial arrangements that can significantly impact insurance claims and policyholder rights. To learn more about the value of assignment of benefits in helping you navigate the restoration process, be sure to subscribe to our newsletter .
(602) 491-2588
335 E Germann Rd #340 Gilbert, AZ 85297
Partner With Us
All rights reserved. Copyright © 2024.
Account executive.
Hi there! I’m Connor, the Account Executive for One Claim. My goal is to guide our contractors through the sales process, ensuring you’re equipped with all the information you need to make your decision and hit the ground running once aboard. We view ourselves as an extension of your business and I strive to make the process an enlightening and consultative one. My career has primarily been focused in software sales over a few different industries but the last few years were spent helping general contractors solve similar problems to what we’re doing here at OCS! Outside of work, I love spending time with my family, cooking and boating during the summer months.
Director, human resources.
Hello! I’m Nicole, and I’m here to champion for our employees, recruit for new talent, and impact culture at One Claim Solution. I find satisfaction in supporting a memorable employee experience and bring innovation, problem solving, and strategic view to the process. Nothing is more important than our people, and a healthy culture is my top priority! I have had the pleasure of building my career in various sectors, specializing in small to medium size firms focused on high-growth. My experience is centered around driving and implementing change, leading high-performing teams, and driving process improvements. I am excited to make an impact at One Claim. Outside of work, my family and I enjoy getting outdoors as much as possible to explore beautiful Colorado!
Demand generation manager.
Great to meet you! I’m Elizabeth, and I’m the one behind all the emails and advertisements you’ve been seeing. As the Demand Generation Manager at One Claim Solution, my mission is to connect with contractors like you who need our services. I’m passionate about having an impact on others and I bring a wealth of experience in demand generation and marketing strategy to create moments of delight, curiosity, and education for you.
Prior to One Claim Solution, I had the privilege of building marketing departments from the ground up at companies in a variety of industries, including IT consulting, first protection, and healthcare. Personally, I love being outdoors, playing Dungeons and Dragons and board games, singing, and traveling.
Director of contractor success.
Welcome! I’m Alisha, and I’m here to champion your success as the Director of Contractor Success at One Claim. With a passion for helping contractors thrive, I bring a wealth of experience in onboarding, customer service, and account management to ensure your journey with us is nothing short of exceptional.
Prior to joining One Claim, I had the privilege of scaling SMB and Enterprise Customer Success teams at fast-growing SaaS startups. With over six years of experience at companies like Mavenlink, Teamwork, and ServiceTitan, I honed my expertise in building high-performing teams and fostering proactive, consultative relationships. This background has equipped me with a deep understanding of the challenges faced by businesses like yours, and I’m dedicated to helping you overcome them.
Hi there, my name is Eric! I am the Chief Technology Officer here at OCS, spearheading our technical strategy. I have a background in computer science, graduating cum laude from BYU-Idaho with a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Information Technology.
Before coming to One Claim, I served as the Director of Engineering at Slingshot Technology, Inc., a company later acquired by WorkWave in 2021. My professional journey has spanned both emerging startups and established corporations, with a steadfast focus on cultivating high-trust, low bureaucracy teams and innovating technology using agile methodologies.
In my free time, you can find me flying drones, enjoying the outdoors, and spending time with my family.
Hello, my name is Cam, I’m the COO of One Claim Solution! I come from a management consulting background (Bain & Company) and hold an MBA from the University of Michigan. I have worked at a wide variety of organizations, from Fortune 500 to small-cap, in an equally wide variety of industries. I have over 15 years of experience in operations and strategic growth, and I have spent much of my career focused on developing high-performing tech-enabled service organizations through early stage and high growth phases.
Outside of work, my wife Brittny and I have four kids, ages 13 to 6. As residents of Mesa, Arizona, we love to ski and explore the national parks of the southwest!
Hello, my name is Dan, and I am the CEO of One Claim Solution. I am super excited by everything we are doing at OCS to be the market leading insurance billing specialist that advocates on behalf of our restoration contractors.
My professional experiences are predominantly corporate in nature. My career started at General Electric in finance and accounting. Immediately prior to joining OCS, I spent time as an investor at Bondcliff Partners and management consultant with Bain & Company. I also hold an MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and got my BS in finance and accounting from Northeastern University.
Outside of the office, I enjoy spending time with my wife, two young children, and our family dog, Whiskey. We live in Charleston, SC and take advantage of the beautiful weather by spending as much time as possible outside at the beach or adventuring around town
Hi, I’m Josh! In 2016, I co-founded One Claim Solution with my partner Jeremy Traasdahl, and I serve as General Counsel of One Claim Solution. Working in the restoration industry, Jeremy and I saw contractors struggling to get paid quickly and fairly and we knew there was a need for change. We founded One Claim Solution to be this change and it’s been my privilege to see our company grow and to advocate for our clients as general counsel.
Outside of my passion for helping the restoration industry, I enjoy spending time outdoors, fly-fishing, hunting, skiing, and coaching my kids’ baseball teams. I’ve been married to my amazing wife for 20 years and we have a beautiful family of 5 children.
Hey, I’m Jeremy! In 2016, I co-founded One Claim Solution with my partner Josh Ehmke. Working in the restoration industry, Josh and I saw contractors struggling to get paid quickly and fairly and we knew there was a need for change. We founded One Claim Solution to be this change and it’s been my privilege to lead our amazing team.
Prior to One Claim Solution, I started my career as an inside sales rep for Avnet, then moved to Pepsico as a district sales manager. Outside of work, I love spending time with my wife and four children, two boys and two girls!
By J Mandakini, NUALS
Editor’s Note: This paper attempts to explore the concept of assignment under Indian law especially Contract Act, Insurance Act and Transfer of Property Act. It seeks to appreciate why the assignment is made use of for securities of a facility sanctioned by ICICI Bank. Also, it explains how ICICI Bank faces certain problems in executing the same.
For any facility sanctioned by a lender, collateral is always deposited to secure the same. Such mere deposition will not suffice, the borrower has to explicitly permit the lender to recover from the borrower, such securities in case of his default.
This is done by the concept of assignment, dealt with adequately in Indian law. Assignment of obligations is always a tricky matter and needs to be dealt with carefully. The Bank should not fall short of any legally permitted lengths to ensure the same. This is why ambiguity in its security documents have to be rectified.
This paper attempts to explore the concept of assignment in contract law. It seeks to appreciate why the assignment is made use of for securities of a facility sanctioned by ICICI Bank. The next section will deal with how ICICI Bank faces certain problems in executing the same. The following sections will talk about possible risks involved, as well as defenses and solutions to the same.
Assignment refers to the transfer of certain or all (depending on the agreement) rights to another party. The party which transfers its rights is called an assignor, and the party to whom such rights are transferred is called an assignee. Assignment only takes place after the original contract has been made. As a general rule, assignment of rights and benefits under a contract may be done freely, but the assignment of liabilities and obligations may not be done without the consent of the original contracting party.
The liability on a contract cannot be transferred so as to discharge the person or estate of the original contractor unless the creditor agrees to accept the liability of another person instead of the first. [i]
P agrees to sell his car to Q for Rs. 100. P assigns the right to receive the Rs. 100 to S. This may be done without the consent of Q. This is because Q is receiving his car, and it does not particularly matter to him, to whom the Rs. 100 is being handed as long as he is being absolved of his liability under the contract. However, notice may still be required to be given. Without such notice, Q would pay P, in spite of the fact that such right has been assigned to S. S would be a sufferer in such case.
In this case, that condition is being fulfilled since P has assigned his right to S. However, P may not assign S to be the seller. P cannot just transfer his duties under the contract to another. This is because Q has no guarantee as to the condition of S’s car. P entered into the contract with Q on the basis of the merits of P’s car, or any other personal qualifications of P. Such assignment may be done with the consent of all three parties – P, Q, S, and by doing this, P is absolved of his liabilities under the contract.
Immediately on the execution of an assignment of an insurance policy, the assignor forgoes all his rights, title and interest in the policy to the assignee. The premium or loan interest notices etc. in such cases will be sent to the assignee. [ii] However, the existence of obligations must not be assumed, when it comes to the assignment. It must be accompanied by evidence of the same. The party asserting such a personal obligation must prove the existence of an express assumption by clear and unequivocal proof. [iii]
Assignment of a contract to a third party destroys the privity of contract between the initial contracting parties. New privity is created between the assignee and the original contracting party. In the illustration mentioned above, the original contracting parties were P and Q. After the assignment, the new contracting parties are Q and S.
Assignment, once validly executed, can neither be revoked nor canceled at the option of the assignor. To do so, the insurance policy will have to be reassigned to the original assignor (the insured).
There are some instances where the contract cannot be assigned to another.
1.4. enforcing a contract of assignment.
From the day on which notice is given to the insurer, the assignee becomes the beneficiary of the policy even though the assignment is not registered immediately. It does not wait until the giving of notice of the transfer to the insurer. [vi] However, no claims may lie against the insurer until and unless notice of such assignment is delivered to the insurer.
If notice of assignment is not provided to the obligor, he is discharged if he pays to the assignor. Assignee would have to recover from the assignor. However, if the obligor pays the assignor in spite of the notice provided to him, he would still be liable to the assignee.
The following two illustrations make the point amply clear:
1. Seller A assigns its right to payment from buyer X to bank B. Neither A nor B gives notice to X. When payment is due, X pays A. This payment is fully valid and X is discharged. It will be up to B to recover it from A
2. Seller A assigns to bank B its right to payment from buyer X. B immediately gives notice of the assignment to X. When payment is due, X still pays A. X is not discharged and B is entitled to oblige X to pay a second time.
An assignee doesn’t stand in better shoes than those of his assignor. Thus, if there is any breach of contract by the obligor to the assignee, the latter can recover from the former only the same amount as restricted by counter claims, set offs or liens of the assignor to the obligor.
The acknowledgment of notice of assignment is conclusive proof of, and evidence enough to entertain a suit against an assignor and the insurer respectively who haven’t honoured the contract of assignment.
There is no separate law in India which deals with the concept of assignment. Instead, several laws have codified it under different laws. Some of them have been discussed as follows:
There is no express provision for the assignment of contracts under the Indian Contract Act. Section 37 of the Act provides for the duty of parties of a contract to honour such contract (unless the need for the same has been done away with). This is how the Act attempts to introduce the concept of assignment into Indian commercial law. It lays down a general responsibility on the “representatives” of any parties to a contract that may have expired before the completion of the contract. (Illustrations to Section 37 in the Act).
An exception to this may be found from the contract, e.g. contracts of a personal nature. Representatives of a deceased party to a contract cannot claim privity to that contract while refusing to honour such contract. Under this Section, “representatives” would also include within its ambit, transferees and assignees. [vii]
Section 41 of the Indian Contract Act applies to cases where a contract is performed by a third party and not the original parties to the contract. It applies to cases of assignment. [viii] A promisee accepting performance of the promise from a third person cannot afterwards enforce it against the promisor. [ix] He cannot attain double satisfaction of its claim, i.e., from the promisor as well as the third party which performed the contract. An essential condition for the invocation of this Section is that there must be actual performance of the contract and not of a substituted promise.
The creation of assignment of life insurance policies is provided for, under Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938.
Indian law as to assignment of life policies before the Insurance Act, 1938 was governed by Sections 130, 131, 132 and 135 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 under Chapter VIII of the Act – Of Transfers of Actionable Claims. Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act states that nothing contained in that Section is to affect Section 38 of the Insurance Act.
An actionable claim may be transferred only by fulfilling the following steps:
The transfer will be complete and effectual as soon as such an instrument is executed. No particular form or language has been prescribed for the transfer. It does not depend on giving notice to the debtor.
The proviso in the section protects a debtor (or other person), who, without knowledge of the transfer pays his creditor instead of the assignee. As long as such payment was without knowledge of the transfer, such payment will be a valid discharge against the transferee. When the transfer of any actionable claim is validly complete, all rights and remedies of transferor would vest now in the transferee. Existence of an instrument in writing is a sine qua non of a valid transfer of an actionable claim. [x]
This Section requires the notice of transfer of actionable claim, as sent to the debtor, to be signed by the transferor (or by his authorized agent), and if he refuses to sign it, a signature by the transferee (or by his authorized agent). Such notice must state both the name and address of the transferee. This Section is intended to protect the transferee, to receive from the debtor. The transfer does not bind a debtor unless the transferor (or transferee, if transferor refuses) sends him an express notice, in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
This Section addresses the issue as to who should undertake the obligations under the transfer, i.e., who will discharge the liabilities of the transferor when the transfer has been made complete – would it be the transferor himself or the transferee, to whom the rest of the surviving contract, so to speak, has been transferred.
This Section stipulates, that the transferee himself would fulfill such obligations. However, where an actionable claim is transferred with the stipulation in the contract that transferor himself should discharge the liability, then such a provision in the contract will supersede Ss 130 and 132 of this Act. Where the insured hypothecates his life insurance policies and stipulates that he himself would pay the premiums, the transferee is not bound to pay the premiums. [xi]
Many banks require the borrower to take out or deposit an insurance policy as security when they request a personal loan or a business loan from that institution. The policy is used as a way of securing the loan, ensuring that the bank will have the facility repaid in the event of either the borrower’s death or his deviations from the terms of the facility agreement.
Along with the deposit of the insurance policy, the policyholder will also have to assign the benefits of the policy to the financial institution from which he proposes to avail a facility. The mere deposit, without writing, or passing of any document of title to such a claim, does not create any equitable charge. [xii]
The purpose of taking out a life insurance policy on oneself, is that in the event of an untimely death, near and dear ones of the deceased are not left high and dry, and that they would have something to fall back on during such traumatic times. Depositing and assigning the rights under such policy document to another, would mean that there is a high chance that benefits of life insurance would vest in such other, in the event of unfortunate death and the family members are prioritized only second. These are not desirable circumstances where the family would be forced to cope with the death of their loved one coupled with the financial crisis.
Thus, there is a need to examine the ethics of:
The customer should be cautious before assigning his rights under life insurance policies. By “cautious”, it is only meant that he and his dependents and/or legal heirs should be aware of the repercussions of the act of assigning his life insurance policy. It is conceded that no law prohibits the assignment of life insurance policies.
In fact, Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938 , provides for such assignments. Judicial cases have held life insurance policies as property more than a social welfare measure. [xiii] Further, the bank has no personal relationship with any customer and thus has no moral obligation to not accept such assignments of life insurance.
However, the writer is of the opinion that, in dealing with the assignment of life insurance policies, utmost care and caution must be taken by the insured when assigning his life insurance policy to anyone else.
This Section seeks to address and highlight the manner in which ICICI Bank drafts its security documents with regard to the assignment of obligations. The texts placed in quotes in the subsequent paragraphs are verbatim extracts from the security document as mentioned.
“ 8 . CHARGING CLAUSE
The Mortgagor doth hereby:
iii) Assign and transfer unto the Mortgagee all the Bank Accounts and all rights, title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Mortgagor in, to, under and in respect of the Bank Accounts and all monies including all cash flows and receivables and all proceeds arising from Projects and Other Projects_______________, insurance proceeds, which have been deposited / credited / lying in the Bank Accounts, all records, investments, assets, instruments and securities which represent all amounts in the Bank Accounts, both present and future (the “Account Assets”, which expression shall, as the context may permit or require, mean any or each of such Account Assets) to have and hold the same unto and to the use of the Mortgagee absolutely and subject to the powers and provisions herein contained and subject also to the proviso for redemption hereinafter mentioned;
(v) Assign and transfer unto the Mortgagee all right, title, interest, benefit, claims and demands whatsoever of the Mortgagors, in, to, under and/or in respect of the Project Documents (including insurance policies) including, without limitation, the right to compel performance thereunder, and to substitute, or to be substituted for, the Mortgagor thereunder, and to commence and conduct either in the name of the Mortgagor or in their own names or otherwise any proceedings against any persons in respect of any breach of, the Project Documents and, including without limitation, rights and benefits to all amounts owing to, or received by, the Mortgagor and all claims thereunder and all other claims of the Mortgagor under or in any proceedings against all or any such persons and together with the right to further assign any of the Project Documents, both present and future, to have and to hold all and singular the aforesaid assets, rights, properties, etc. unto and to the use of the Mortgagee absolutely and subject to the powers and provisions contained herein and subject also to the proviso for redemption hereinafter mentioned.”
“ insurance.
The Borrower further agrees that upon any monies becoming due under the policy, the same shall be paid by the Insurance Company to ICICI Bank without any reference / notice to the Borrower, but not exceeding the principal amount outstanding under the Insurance Policy. The Borrower specifically acknowledges that in all cases of claim, the Insurance Company will be solely liable for settlement of the claim, and he/she will not hold ICICI Bank responsible in any manner whether for compensation, recovery of compensation, processing of claims or for any reason whatsoever.
Reference has been made only to assignment of assets, rights, benefits, interests, properties etc. No specific reference has been made to the assignment of obligations of the assignor under such insurance contract.
Where ICICI Bank accepts insurance policy documents of customers as security for a loan, in the light of the fact that the documents are silent about the question of assignment of obligations, are they assigned to ICICI Bank? Where there is hypothecation of a life insurance policy, with a stipulation that the mortgagor (assignor) should pay the premiums, and that the mortgagee (assignee) is not bound to pay the same, Sections 130 and 132 do not apply to such cases. [xiv] With rectification of this issue, ICICI Bank can concretize its hold over the securities with no reservations about its legality.
This section of the paper attempts to explore the many risks that ICICI Bank is exposed to, or other factors which worsen the situation, due to the omission of a clause detailing the assignment of obligations by ICICI Bank.
The practices of other companies could be a risk factor for ICICI Bank in the light of the fact that some of them expressly exclude assignment of obligations in their security documents.
There are some companies whose notice of assignment forms contain an exclusive clause dealing with the assignment of obligations. It states that while rights and benefits accruing out of the insurance policy are to be assigned to the bank, obligations which arise out of such policy documents will not be liable to be performed by the bank. Thus, they explicitly provide for the only assignment of rights and benefits and never the assignment of obligations.
By not clearing up this issue, ICICI Bank could be held to be obligated to the insurance company from whom the assignor took the policy, for example, with respect to insurance premiums which were required to be paid by the assignor. This is not a desirable scenario for ICICI Bank. In case of default by the assignor in the terms of the contract, the right of ICICI Bank over the security deposited (insurance policy in question) could be fraught in the legal dispute.
Numerous suits may be instituted against ICICI Bank alleging a violation of the Indian Contract Act. Some examples include allegations of concealment of fact, fraud etc. These could be enough to render the existing contract of assignment voidable or even void.
This doctrine applies in a situation when a provision in the contract can be interpreted in more than one way, thereby creating ambiguities. It attempts to provide a solution to interpreting vague terms by laying down, that a party which drafts and imposes an ambiguous term should not benefit from that ambiguity. Where there is any doubt or ambiguity in the words of an exclusion clause, the words are construed more forcibly against the party putting forth the document, and in favour of the other party. [xv]
The doctrine of contra proferentem attempts to protect the layman from the legally knowledgeable companies which draft standard forms of contracts, in which the former stands on a much weaker footing with regard to bargaining power with the latter. This doctrine has been used in interpreting insurance contracts in India. [xvi]
If litigation ensues as a result of this uncertainty, there are high chances that the Courts will tend to favour the assignor and not the drafter of the documents.
This section of the paper attempts to give defences which the Bank may raise in case of any disputes arising out of silence on the matter of assignability of obligations.
Interpretation of the Security Documents
UNIDROIT principles expressly provide a method for interpretation of contracts. [xvii] The method consists of utilizing the following factors:
This defence relates to the concept of estoppel embodied in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the Section, when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representatives, to deny the truth of that thing.
If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done and that he will not offer any opposition to it, and he thereby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct. [xviii] Subsequent conduct may be relevant to show that the contract exists, or to show variation in the terms of the contract, or waiver, or estoppel. [xix]
Where the meaning of the instrument is ambiguous, a statement subsequently interpreting such instrument is admissible. [xx] In the present case, where the borrower has never raised any claims with regard to non assignability of obligations on him, and has consented to the present conditions and relations with ICICI Bank, he cannot he cannot be allowed to raise any claims with respect to the same.
Internationally, the doctrine of post contractual conduct is invoked for such disputes. It refers to the acts of parties to a contract after the commencement of the contract. It stipulates that where a party has behaved in a particular manner, so as to induce the other party to discharge its obligations, even if there has been a variation from the terms of the contract, the first party cannot cite such variation as a reason for its breach of the contract.
Where the parties to a contract are both under a common mistake as to the meaning or effect of it, and therefore embark on a course of dealing on the footing of that mistake, thereby replacing the original terms of the contract by a conventional basis on which they both conduct their affairs, then the original contract is replaced by the conventional basis. The parties are bound by the conventional basis. Either party can sue or be sued upon it just as if it had been expressly agreed between them. [xxi]
The importance of consensus ad idem has been concretized by various case laws in India. Further, if the stipulations and terms are uncertain and the parties are not ad idem there can be no specific performance, for there was no contract at all. [xxii]
In the present case, the minds of the assignor and assignee can be said to have not met while entering into the assignment. The assignee never had any intention of undertaking any obligations of the assignor. In Hartog v Colin & Shields, [xxiii] the defendants made an offer to the plaintiffs to sell hare skins, offering to a pay a price per pound instead of per piece.
To concretize ICICI Bank’s stand on the assignment of obligations in the matter of loans secured by insurance policies, the relevant security documents could be amended to include such a clause.
For instances where loans are secured by life insurance policies, a standard set by the American Banker’s Association (ABA) has been followed by many Indian commercial institutions as well. [xxvi] The ABA is a trade association in the USA representing banks ranging from the smallest community bank to the largest bank holding companies. ABA’s principal activities include lobbying, professional development for member institutions, maintenance of best practices and industry standards, consumer education, and distribution of products and services. [xxvii]
There are several ICICI security documents which have included clauses denying any assignment of obligations to it. An extract of the deed of hypothecation for vehicle loan has been reproduced below:
“ 3. In further pursuance of the Loan Terms and for the consideration aforesaid, the Hypothecator hereby further agrees, confirms, declares and undertakes with the Bank as follows:
(i)(a) The Hypothecator shall at its expenses keep the Assets in good and marketable condition and, if stipulated by the Bank under the Loan Terms, insure such of the Assets which are of insurable nature, in the joint names of the Hypothecator and the Bank against any loss or damage by theft, fire, lightning, earthquake, explosion, riot, strike, civil commotion, storm, tempest, flood, erection risk, war risk and such other risks as may be determined by the Bank and including wherever applicable, all marine, transit and other hazards incidental to the acquisition, transportation and delivery of the relevant Assets to the place of use or installation. The Hypothecator shall deliver to the Bank the relevant policies of insurance and maintain such insurance throughout the continuance of the security of these presents and deliver to the Bank the renewal receipts / endorsements / renewed policies therefore and till such insurance policies / renewal policies / endorsements are delivered to the Bank, the same shall be held by the Hypothecator in trust for the Bank. The Hypothecator shall duly and punctually pay all premia and shall not do or suffer to be done or omit to do or be done any act, which may invalidate or avoid such insurance. In default, the Bank may (but shall not be bound to) keep in good condition and render marketable the relevant Assets and take out / renew such insurance. Any premium paid by the Bank and any costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Bank shall forthwith on receipt of a notice of demand from the Bank be reimbursed by the Hypothecator and/or Borrower to the Bank together with interest thereon at the rate for further interest as specified under the Loan Terms, from the date of payment till reimbursement thereof and until such reimbursement, the same shall be a charge on the Assets…”
The inclusion of such a clause in all security documents of the Bank can avoid the problem of assignability of obligations in insurance policies used as security for any facility sanctioned by it.
An assignment of securities is of utmost importance to any lender to secure the facility, without which the lender will not be entitled to any interest in the securities so deposited.
In this paper, one has seen the need for assignment of securities of a facility. Risks involved in not having a separate clause dealing with non assignability of obligations have been discussed. Certain defences which ICICI Bank may raise in case of the dispute have also been enumerated along with solutions to the same.
Formatted by March 2nd, 2019.
[i] J.H. Tod v. Lakhmidas , 16 Bom 441, 449
[ii] http://www.licindia.in/policy_conditions.htm#12, last visited 30 th June, 2014
[iii] Headwaters Construction Co. Ltd. v National City Mortgage Co. Ltd., 720 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Idaho 2010)
[iv] Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act, Mulla, Vol. I, 13 th Edn., Reprint 2010, p 968
[v] Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Raymond & Co ., AIR 1962 SC 1810: (1963) 3 SCR 183
[vi] Principles of Insurance Law, M.N. Srinivasan, 8 th Edn., 2006, p. 857
[vii] Ram Baran v Ram Mohit , AIR 1967 SC 744: (1967) 1 SCR 293
[viii] Sri Sarada Mills Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 281
[ix] Lala Kapurchand Godha v Mir Nawah Himayatali Khan, [1963] 2 SCR 168
[x] Velayudhan v Pillaiyar, 9 Mad LT 102 (Mad)
[xi] Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v Satteya, AIR 1961 AP 183
[xii] Mulraj Khatau v Vishwanath, 40 IA 24 – Respondent based his claim on a mere deposit of the policy and not under a written transfer and claimed that a charge had thus been created on the policy.
[xiii] Insure Policy Plus Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v The Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(109)BOMLR559
[xiv] Transfer of Property Act, Sanjiva Row, 7 th Edn., 2011, Vol II, Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi
[xv] Ghaziabad Development Authority v Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2003
[xvi] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v M/s. Pushpalaya Printers, [2004] 3 SCR 631, General Assurance Society Ltd. v Chandumull Jain & Anr., [1966 (3) SCR 500]
[xvii] UNIDROIT Principles, Art 4.3
[xviii] B.L.Sreedhar & Ors. v K.M. Munireddy & Ors., 2002 (9) SCALE 183
[xix] James Miller & Partners Ltd. v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd., [1970] 1 All ER 796 (HL)
[xx] Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32
[xxi] Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1981] 1 All ER 923
[xxii] Smt. Mayawanti v Smt. Kaushalya Devi, 1990 SCR (2) 350
[xxiii] [1939] 3 All ER 566
[xxiv] Terrell v Alexandria Auto Co., 12 La.App. 625
[xxv] http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CISG25/Pamboukis.pdf, last visited on 30 th June, 2014
[xxvi] https://www.phoenixwm.phl.com/shared/eforms/getdoc.jsp?DocId=525.pdf, last visited on 30 th June, 2014
[xxvii] http://www.aba.com/About/Pages/default.aspx, last visited on 30 th June, 2014
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)
Thanks, I’m not interested
Volgograd oblast
Crash of an antonov an-12 in krasnoslobodsk: 6 killed, crash of a pzl-mielec an-2r in karagishev, crash of a pzl-mielec an-2r in sukhov 2-i: 3 killed.
Crash of a pzl-mielec an-2r in shiryaiski, crash of a pzl-mielec an-2 near volgograd, crash of a pzl-mielec an-2r in dvoynovskiy.
Essential volzhsky, things to do.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Definition of Assignee. An assignee on a life insurance policy is an individual or entity that is designated to receive the policy benefits or take over the ownership rights and responsibilities. When a policyholder assigns their life insurance policy, they transfer their rights to the assignee, who then becomes the new owner of the policy.
This differs from collateral assignment since instead of using the loan as collateral, you are signing the full policy over to a person or entity. This person or business is considered the assignee, while the person who is selling the policy is the assignor. The individual who buys the insurance policy gains ownership of the policy.
A collateral assignment of life insurance is a conditional assignment appointing a lender as an assignee of a policy. Essentially, the lender has a claim to some or all of the death benefit until ...
A collateral assignment of life insurance is a method of securing a loan by using a life insurance policy as collateral. If you pass away before the loan is repaid, the lender can collect the ...
There are two parties to a collateral assignment. Assignor - Is the owner of the life insurance policy. Assignee - Is the lender. Life insurance companies have standardized forms used for this purpose. The owner completes the form and sends it to the lender for review and signature. Once completed by the lender, the form is sent to the ...
You are the assignor. Once your policy is set up, a collateral assignment will supersede your beneficiaries' right to the death benefit. If you die, the life insurance company pays the lender, or assignee, the loan balance. Any remaining benefit will go to your beneficiaries.
As the collateral assignee of life insurance, the lender may collect a portion of the death benefit to repay your debt or take the accumulated cash value in the policy if you stop making payments. One key thing to remember about collateral assignment life insurance is that there are consequences if you fail to pay back the loan.
Assignee in an Insurance Policy In the context of a life insurance policy, interest in a policy can be transferred from the policyholder to a lender or relative by assignment of the policy.
Once you've assigned a new collateral assignee to your life insurance policy, they will be entitled to lay a claim on your death benefit for any debt you have with them. For example, let's say you take out a collateral assignment life insurance policy worth $200,000 for a loan of $75,000 over 7 years at an interest rate of 18%.
Collateral assignment of your life insurance policy can help you get approved for a loan. Learn how it works, how it impacts your policy, and alternatives to consider. ... Any amount assigned as collateral in an annuity is treated as a distribution for tax purposes. In other words, the amount assigned will be taxed as income up to the amount of ...
In a life insurance contract, a collateral assignment allocates the policy's death benefit as security for a loan. This means that if the borrower dies before repaying the loan, the lender, as the collateral assignee of the life insurance, can claim the owed amount from the death benefit.
Assignment of a Life Insurance Policy simply means transfer of rights from one person to another. The policyholder can transfer the rights of his insurance policy to another for various reasons and this process is called Assignment. The person who assigns the policy, i.e. transfers the rights, is called the Assignor and the one to whom the ...
FEGLI enrollees use this form to assign ownership of their life insurance coverage to another person, firm, or trust; and assignees use the form to reassign the coverage. The employee/retiree is still the insured person, but s/he no longer owns the insurance on his/her life. The employee/retiree continues to pay the FEGLI premiums from the employee salary or retirement annuity. An assignment ...
Please contact Technical Support at 1-800-WESTLAW (1-800-937-8529) for assistance. An overview of the legal principles that apply when assigning an insurance policy or the right to receive the insurance monies due under the policy to a third party. It considers the requirements that must be met for the assignment to be valid and explains the ...
Absolute assignment of a life insurance policy is irrevocable due to its complete transfer of ownership from the assignor to the assignee. It is a binding legal agreement with no control over the assignor. Exceptions include a mutual agreement or legal provisions. Absolute assignment should be considered carefully for estate planning, gifting ...
In analyzing pre-loss assignments, the courts recognize that requiring an insurer to provide coverage to an assignee of its policy prior to the occurrence of a covered loss would place the insurer ...
Nomination and Assignment serve different purposes. The nomination protects the interests of the insured as well as an insurer in offering claim benefits under the life insurance policy. On the other hand, assignment protects the interests of an assignee in availing the monetary benefits under the policy. The policyholder should be aware of ...
According to Josh Ehmke, Co-owner and General Consult at One Claim Solution, there's a common misunderstanding between assignment of benefits and assignment of policy. An assignment of policy refers to the transfer of the benefits and rights of an insurance policy from one party (the policyholder) to another party (the assignee). "An ...
1.1. Effect of Assignment. Immediately on the execution of an assignment of an insurance policy, the assignor forgoes all his rights, title and interest in the policy to the assignee. The premium or loan interest notices etc. in such cases will be sent to the assignee.
Volzhsky or Volzhskiy (Russian: Волжский, IPA: [ˈvolʂskʲɪj]) is an industrial town in Volgograd Oblast, Russia, located on the east bank of the Volga River and its distributary the Akhtuba, 20 kilometers (12 mi) northeast of Volgograd.Population: 321,427 (2021 Census); [9] 314,255 (2010 Census); [3] 313,169 (2002 Census); [10] 268,842 (1989 Soviet census).
The single engine aircraft was engaged in a local skydiving mission in the region of Volgograd. After some of the skydivers jumped out, the pilot decided to return to his departure point and two passengers remained in the cabin.
Black & White. 2. Bar, Pub. Volzhsky Tourism: Tripadvisor has 1,804 reviews of Volzhsky Hotels, Attractions, and Restaurants making it your best Volzhsky resource.
Volgograd Oblast (Russian: Волгоградская область, IPA: [vəɫɡɐˈgratskəjə ˈobɫəsʲtʲ]) is a federal subject (an oblast) of Russia, located in the lower Volga region of Southern Russia.Its administrative center is Volgograd.The population of the oblast was 2,500,781 in the 2021 Census.. Formerly known as Stalingrad Oblast, it was given its present name in 1961, when ...