New Legislation Introduced in Congress Would Help Seniors and the Life Settlement Industry

A bill introduced in Congress could help spur sales of life insurance in the secondary market by allowing policyholders to use the proceeds from the sale of a life insurance policy to fund an account to be used for paying long-term care expenses on a tax-favored basis. 

HR Bill 7203, introduced by U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas, a Republican, and U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins of New York, a Democrat, has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would allow policyholders to reduce “the amount of gain from the sale or assignment of a life insurance contract … by the amount of contributions to a long-term care account” as long as the contribution was made “during the 30-day period beginning on the date of such sale or assignment.”

Currently, in a life insurance policy sale, the policy owner is taxed on the amount above the cost basis – typically the premium paid. This new law would allow a policy sale to occur tax-free, and then allow the policyholder to place the proceeds into a newly created long-term care account that would be “exempt from taxation” as long as the account was used for paying for long-term care.

Tax-free distributions could be made from the accounts to pay for “qualified long-term care services” as well as “premiums for a qualified long-term care insurance contract,” for both the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s spouse, and after the death of the account beneficiary, the account would revert to the spouse.   

The accounts created would be held in trust by a bank, an insurance company, or “another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the secretary that the manner in which such person will administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements of this section.”

Any amount distributed from the account that was not used exclusively for long-term care would be includable in the gross income of the beneficiary and subject to a 20% surcharge, except in cases where the beneficiary dies or becomes terminally or chronically ill under current law. 

The proposed law greatly expands the tax advantages of selling an unneeded life insurance policy in the secondary market, and if passed, would provide the policyholder with another reason to explore the life settlement market.

We will report back on the progress of the bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Join ITM TwentyFirst at the 53rd Annual Heckerling Institute of Estate Planning

We have three office locations across the United States, and as I write this, none will see 40 degrees as their high-temperature today, so it is no wonder we are looking forward to heading south to the sunshine of Orlando, Florida, for this year’s Heckerling Institute of Estate Planning session from January 14-18.  However, it is much more than that.

It has been about 15 years since we attended our first Heckerling session. Back then, we were pioneers in the trust-owned life insurance (TOLI) policy review space. Before we came to market, trustees had few resources, except local life insurance agents, to help review their portfolio. Our service solved a significant problem: for the first time, TOLI trustees could receive a non-biased policy review (our Standard Solution). We followed that up with a full-service outsource offering (our Managed Solution) that provided dedicated experts in trust administration and policy management to not only track the policy but to handle all back-office administration and equally important, to solve policy issues. We helped mitigate liability by creating the trust file documentation necessary to prove a prudent process occurred.

Last year, again taking a pioneering approach, we created the first trust company focused on life insurance (Life Insurance Trust Company) after clients approached us looking for a trustee who would take some or all their ILITs and not compete with them on their other assets.

Over the years, ITM TwentyFirst has grown by listening to clients. Going to Heckerling is one way we get to do that face to face. When we first exhibited there, we were focused only on prospecting, but now when we go, we get to visit with clients. Many of the exhibitors at Heckerling are trust officers at some of our more than 200 bank and trust clients, and we have worked with and received referrals from many of the attorneys speaking at the sessions. The satisfaction of going to Heckerling is not just the generation of new business, though thankfully that still happens. The real fulfillment is seeing clients we have had for over a decade – peers that have been a part of our growth and have grown their business alongside ours.  

It is also interesting to see the continued expansion in the industry we helped develop and to welcome others who are also trying to help trustees maximize this often-misunderstood asset of life insurance. We are proud of our part in helping to initiate and lead this progress.  

This year, Leon Wessels, who is spearheading growth at our new trust company, and John Barkhurst, who is heading up business development on our TOLI services, will be attending. Please take the time to stop by and bring along your toughest problems about the life insurance policies you handle. You will not find two more capable people on the exhibit hall floor to solve them.

If you stop by and see them at booth #128, you can also find out how to get a free PDF copy of The TOLI Handbook, the most comprehensive guide available for TOLI trustees and take the ITM TwentyFirst TOLI Challenge for the chance to win a prize.

We hope to see you there.

Trust Owned Life Insurance (TOLI) Year End Review for 2018

First, we want to thank all ITM TwentyFirst clients for another remarkable year of growth. Without the support of our partners at banks, trust companies, family offices, and law firms across the country, we could not sustain the growth that has made us the largest manager of in-force life insurance in the country.  So, thank you for that.

One reason for our growth over the years has been the quality of our team. From the beginning, we have focused on internal education to provide our staff with an edge in the market, and over the years we have also trained peers and regulators through our outreach programs.  In 2018, we released a free PDF entitled the TOLI Handbook, the culmination of over a decade of real-world insight translated into a guide for the management and administration of TOLI trusts. The PDF is available for free at TOLIHandbook.com.

We at ITM TwentyFirst have always listened to our clients.  We started by creating a software program that TOLI trustees could use to manage policies. When clients asked if we could do more, we created the Managed Solution, total outsourcing of TOLI trust administration and policy tracking and remediation.  In the last few years, we heard from clients looking to offload a portion or all of their ILITs to a firm that would not compete with them in other areas and in 2018 we started the Trust Owned Life Insurance Company (https://lifeinsurancetrustco.com/) the only trust company in the US focused on life insurance trusts.  Our initial year has been very promising, and we look forward to helping trustees deal with this challenging asset. 

The biggest news in the TOLI industry this year? It had to be the changes in the estate tax laws brought about by the signing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by President Trump. The law raised the federal estate tax exemption from $5.49 million to $11.18 million and dramatically lowered the number of estates subject to the federal estate tax. It is estimated that with the higher exemption amount less than one of every 1,000 estates will subject to the tax. (1)

This will mean more work for a TOLI trustee who, besides managing a policy, may now have to justify its value to a grantor.  A savvy trustee will explain to the client that the estate tax law changes made the policy in the trust more – not less – valuable.  If the grantor no longer needs the policy to pay estate taxes, that just means that more of the benefit is going to the beneficiaries – and wasn’t that the goal in the first place? 

Some grantors will still want to make changes – perhaps lower the death benefit or limit the gifting that must occur going forward.  This will mean more remediation services will be required for a TOLI portfolio and we have found this is the weakness in many TOLI trustee service platforms.  Having a life insurance expert on staff will be a necessity going forward unless you outsource that job.  Remember that even if the grantor no longer thinks they need as much death benefit – or any death benefit – your job, actually your responsibility as a trustee, will still be to maximize the asset in the trust.

Another area we have seen trustees slip is policy replacement analysis.  Some agents are using the changes in the estate tax as a marketing tool to engage grantors and recommend a change to the policy in their trust.  The sale of permanent life insurance in the estate planning market has dropped. LIMRA, an industry organization, reported that the total number of policies sold market wide dropped by 3% in the 1st quarter of 2018.  The biggest drop was in guaranteed universal life (24%), a policy often used in estate planning.  Variable and index universal life policies saw gains, but only because the industry has shifted its marketing from death benefit sales to income retirement sales and these policies are being touted as excellent vehicles for that use. (2)  Agents that have focused on the estate planning market are simply not selling the volume of new policies they have in the past and have redirected efforts to replace existing policies.  Throughout this year – in blogs and education programs – we have pointed out “bad” replacement efforts we have caught.  For one brought to us by a prospect for review two years after the fact, we could do nothing, and he wound up writing a high five-figure check to make the client whole.  The prospect is now a client of our Managed Solution.      

One hopeful sign – the clamor among the states and associations for a Best Interest Standard.  New York has led the charge with a regulation that would require agents to provide “the product that best reflects the customer’s interest,” not “what is most profitable to the seller.” The Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Board already has standards in place that all CFP designees act with “honesty” and “integrity,” always “in the client’s best interest,” placing the interests of the client above the interests of the CFP. (3)

One area we have seen increased activities this year is the life settlement market.  The sales of life insurance in the secondary market has been trending up in the last few years, and though 2018 statistics are not in the conversations we have had with those in that market lead us to believe that sales will be up again.  The changes in the estate tax have had a positive effect on sales and a change in the taxation of a policy for a seller has also helped.  In the past, a seller of a policy would pay taxes on the difference between the cost basis and the sales price – but there was a twist.  Since 2009, tax laws made the seller subtract the cumulative cost of insurance charges assessed against the policy from the cost basis creating a higher tax bill.  The new tax law did away with that, reducing the tax burden on those who sell their policy.    

Cost of insurance (COI) increases continued in 2018 with well-known carriers like John Hancock and Lincoln National raising costs on legacy policies.  We reported on several court cases filed against carriers that had raised their costs and in each case the carrier had to “give back” some of the extra charges, though whether it was enough to keep others from raising costs remains to be seen.

We at ITM TwentyFirst are grateful for a challenging, but eventful year, one that has seen the company grow dramatically.  We now have locations in four cities and cover the country from coast to coast. Our product line is expanding, and our company has grown to over 150 team members while still keeping in place the high service level standards we are known for.

We are grateful for the opportunities ahead of us and again thank you for your trust and your business. 

  1. Only 1,700 Estates Would Owe Estate Tax in 2018 Under the TCJA, Howard Gleckman, Tax Policy Center, December 6, 2017, https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/only-1700-estates-would-owe-estate-tax-2018-under-tcja
  2. LIMRA: U.S. Individual Life Insurance Sales Decline in First Quarter 2018, insurancenewsnet.com, June 4, 2018
  3. New York State Proposes “Best Interest” Standard in Sale of Life Insurance and Annuities, ITM TwentyFirst Blog, February 9, 2018

Informing Grantors About Their Policy Makes Good Business Sense

A recent online survey about life insurance found that 33% of life insurance policy owners do not understand how their policy works. (1) I suspect that this number is probably low. Maybe the other 67% probably think they know how it does, but I imagine they could get a refresher lesson on how it actually does. Even if they do understand how it works, do they understand how a decade of low-interest rates and equity market volatility affected their policy?

TOLI trustees should be contacting grantors to explain to them just how their policy works. Doing so will provide the grantor with greater clarity about their policy and provide the trustee with a chance to deepen the client relationship, bringing benefits to both grantor and trustee.

For the grantor who has been dutifully paying premiums (and trust fees) for years, the discussion will reinforce the reasons for taking the policy out. Even though the changes in the federal estate tax may have greatly reduced the number of people subject to the tax, life insurance is still a worthwhile financial investment and that point can be driven home by the discussion. Just because the proceeds will not be gobbled up by taxes does not mean the proceeds are no longer as valuable – in fact, they are now more valuable since, for many, one hundred percent of the benefit will go to the beneficiaries, a plus.

For some policies, the last ten years of low-interest rates have been a drag on performance and now is the time to review those policies with your clients – when interest rates are ticking up and fixed investments (which most life insurance policies are) have a rosier future. Perhaps the premiums will have to be increased to keep the policy on track but the policy, if managed correctly, is still a valuable asset.

Many of your grantors are reassessing their financial and estate planning future, given the changes and market volatility of the last ten years. Once they are comfortable their life insurance policy is secure and valuable, you can move on to other subjects that may provide additional revenue for your firm.

For many of your clients, retirement income is a major concern. Some may feel they do not have enough assets to support their lifestyle, some simply have not put a retirement funding plan in place. In either situation, financial planning services can lead to additional opportunities for your firm. For example, clients worried that they may “run out of money” can be introduced to annuities as a funding vehicle for a portion of their assets to ensure a basic lifetime income.

Higher net worth clients, with well-funded retirements, still need your services. Introduce your investment options as you develop a relationship with them. These clients also have issues other than money you can solve. Most wealthy individuals struggle with how much to pass on to their children and how to structure the inheritance. You can bring great relief to ILIT clients by introducing other trust and estate planning services that can solve their problems.

Use the discussions with the grantors to open a dialogue with the beneficiaries of the ILIT that you control. Most TOLI trustees we speak with rank retaining the asset – the death benefit after the death of the insured – as one reason for handling ILITs, yet few put in the time and effort to cultivate the next generation of wealth. Why can’t the beneficiaries be clients now so that retaining the TOLI benefit in the future will be cemented?

There are many reasons for contacting grantors to explain the policy. For clients of ITM TwentyFirst, you have one of the best tools in the industry available to do just that. Our annual policy reports provide all of the information needed to have a fruitful discussion with your client and for clients of our Managed Solution, a remediation specialist is available for any questions or policy modeling that might be needed.

Open the lines of communication with your grantors, you will be glad you did.

1. 54% of Americans Own a Life Insurance Policy, But One-Third Not Exactly Sure How It Works, Mike Brown, September 19, 2018 lenedu.com

Allstate Sued by Firm Alleging Non-Payment of Death Benefits

In 2013, we wrote about the sale of Lincoln Benefit Life, an Allstate company, to Resolution Life Holdings, Inc. It was the first purchase in the States for the UK company, run by British entrepreneur, Clive Chowdry, whose ambition, according to the Financial Times, was to “buy up and roll together a number of life assurance businesses and to run them for cash instead of hunting for new customers.” The runoff administration business model employed by the company and by some others who have entered the insurance field is designed to maximize profits on a closed book of business. At the time, we worried about cost of insurance increases in the block, but now comes a lawsuit accusing Resolution from failing to pay “death benefits owed” to Emergent Capital, Inc., a Boca Raton, Florida, life settlement company that owned the policies in question.  Although the lawsuit references only three policies directly, it notes that Emergent is owner of over 50 Lincoln Benefit Life policies.

Allstate is alleged in the lawsuit to have pursued the sale to Resolution without proper vetting and without the “good faith” that it owed Lincoln Benefit policyholders. The suit claims Allstate had a “fiduciary” duty to act in the“best interests” of policyholders, “use diligence and care in the investigation and evaluation of Resolution as a prospective purchaser,” and “refrain from acting solely on the basis of its own financial interests in the sale.” The complaint asserts that by “choosing to sell its wholly-owned subsidiary Lincoln Benefit to the highest bidder, Allstate improperly placed its own financial interests ahead of those of the insurance policy owners” and “ignored information readily available to it regarding Resolution’s well known claim practices that violate statutory and common law rules.” The suit claims that it was “understood in the life insurance industry that, at the time of the Lincoln Benefit sale to Resolution, Resolution may have had an internal practice and procedure of challenging and contesting every life insurance policy claim involving policies having life benefits that exceeded a certain high-level dollar amount.”

The three policies referenced in the lawsuit were issued in 2007 to trusts created by the insured, and shortly after policy issue, all three trusts “entered into a premium financing arrangement with Emergent,” apparently with the policies as collateral. Within approximately three years of policy issue, all three policies had their ownership changed to Emergent. Lincoln Benefit was alerted via “fully completed and fully executed” Lincoln Benefit service forms that policy ownership was changed with “the specific knowledge and consent of Allstate’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Lincoln Benefit.” After the change in ownership, both Lincoln Benefit and then Resolution accepted premium payments from Emergent.

According to the suit, Allstate “created and maintained an internal committee to research, vet, and approve qualified and reputable insurance premium financing companies, like Emergent, with whom it would do business and recommend to prospective life insurance applicants to help them afford to pay the exorbitant insurance policy premiums charged by Allstate and its wholly-owned subsidiary Lincoln Benefit.” Emergent “was one of a small group of life insurance premium financing companies affirmatively approved” by the carrier and its subsidiary company.

When the insured on each policy passed away, Lincoln Benefit took the position that death benefits need not be paid on the three policies because they and “others similarly situated had never been active or in force” since “any life insurance policy issued by Allstate’s wholly-owned subsidiary Lincoln Benefit (whose assets were sold by Allstate to Resolution) and financed through a life insurance premium finance arrangement, like the one the Frankel ILIT, the Matz ILIT and the Pohl Trust, and others, had with Emergent, constituted a “stranger owned life insurance policy” (or “STOLI”) and, therefore, were all void ab initio.”

Emergent is asking that compensatory and punitive damages be awarded in the case and estimates compensatory damages alone to “exceed $32 million..with the potential of exceeding $100 million.”

While we have Lincoln Benefit policies under management we have never had any issues with death benefit payments or even service levels at the carrier since the sales transaction took place.

We will report back with updates as the suit winds its way through the court.

Trustee Alert: Don’t Be a Casualty of the Life Insurance Illustration War

In the 1980s when current assumption universal life (CAUL) hit the market, sales illustrations were created showing cash value returns of 10% and more every year – for a product that was invested in fixed instruments.  When equity markets soared and variable universal life (VUL) became the rage, many sales illustrations projected 12% returns – again, every year.

Life insurance illustrations are at best a guide – they do not guarantee the future, they are based on hoped-for returns which do not occur as projected.  All else equal, in a universal life chassis without secondary guarantees, the higher the rate of return assumption, the lower the premium that has to be shown in a sales illustration to carry the policy to maturity (or some other goal).

The premium shown in a sales illustration is not the cost of the policy – costs are shown on the expense page of the illustration.  An unreasonably high return assumption can easily hide higher policy charges.  Why?  Because over the lifetime of the policy, the highest expense is typically the monthly deduction for the cost of insurance – the mortality charges.  Those charges are based not on the death benefit, but on the net amount at risk, which is the difference between the death benefit and the cash value. (For a more detailed explanation of net amount at risk, go to Chapter 6 of the TOLI Handbook, available as a free download here.)  As the cash value climbs, the net amount at risk drops and the actual charges deducted drop.  A high assumed rate of return creates a double-edged cycle – a higher return creates higher cash value which lowers costs which creates higher cash values.  A perfect situation – for a disaster.

The CAUL policies issued in the 80s and into the 90s with unreasonable returns crashed and burned with policy lapses that fueled the rise the rise of secondary death benefit policies, guaranteed universal life (GUL).  The 12% returns of VUL policies did not hold up either and after the market crash of 2007-08, many people fled to equity indexed universal life (EIUL). These were considered more “conservative” because while the returns were tied to an equity index, an interest rate floor – typically 0%, limited the downside – “you could not lose money” with this product. (Note that even though the investment component may not be negative, policy charges still accrue so cash value does drop.)

The policy also has a limit on the upside, called the cap, set by the carrier.  A policy with a cap of 10%, which is typical, means that any returns over 10% will be lost.  This is one reason that the rate of return assumption in EIUL policies is tricky to project.  When we first started seeing these policies, the assumed crediting rate in sales illustrations was well above 7%, often approaching 8%.  Now with regulation AG 49 in force, sales (and in-force) illustrations are limited to a maximum return of around 7%.  One carrier has created an online tool that translates the actual return in an index, like the S&P 500, into the crediting rate applied to the policy.  For example, assuming a 10% cap and 0% floor, to credit a policy with a 7% rate, the actual return in the S&P 500 would have to be between 10 and 11 percent.

However, there is more.  Regulation AG 49 capped the rate of return that could be shown in the policy, but it did not stop the use of various interest bonuses and multipliers that might not be seen or understood in an illustration.  We are in the midst of an illustration war with carriers determined to create products that illustrate better in a sales situation.  According to one life insurance expert, these AG 49 compliant illustrations can take a “6.75% illustrated rate” and “generate a 9% illustrated internal rate of return on cash value.” (1) The industry is turning lead into gold.

Unfortunately for the TOLI trustee taking in a new policy, this creates issues. As a fiduciary, you must make sure that the assumptions on the asset in the trust are reasonable.  As a business person, you must make sure your clients are not disappointed by policy performance – when the policy crashes, it will be your problem.

So what is the answer?  First, have skilled life insurance professionals on staff.  An untrained administrator will not be able to decipher today’s sophisticated products.  If you do not have skilled staff – find them or outsource the service.

Second, do not accept policies with assumptions you deem unreasonable.  Hopefully the current crediting rates on new current assumption policies and dividends on whole life policies are bottoming out, and rates will be rising – a plus.

For variable universal life policies, review the asset allocation and develop a conservative assumption for the expected returns.  If you think 8% is reasonable in an equity-rich allocation, also show the outcome at 5.5% or 6%.  If a more balanced allocation generates an assumed return of 7%, also show 4.5% or 5%. Show the clients the downside funding needs, you will be glad you did.

For equity index UL policies, get an illustration assuming a crediting rate of 5% along with the 6-7% return that is usually shown.  And make sure you (and your grantors) understand the bells and whistles of the policy. (See Chapter 10 of the TOLI Handbook for a thorough discussion of the equity index UL policy.)

Document the higher carrying costs that come with a lower return assumption and have the client sign a document acknowledging those additional costs and make that a part of your trust file.

Generate a report annually that shows the current condition of the policy and any premium changes that should occur to keep the policy on track.

Do not assume the aggressive assumptions made by salespeople to lower the projected premium and increase the chance of a sale will actually occur.  Your job is not to sell a policy – it is to deliver a death benefit.

Be careful out there.

  1. Voya ICAR & The Indexed UL Illustration War, Bobby Samuelson, The Life Product Review, October 11, 2018

 

Life Insurance Settlement Association (LISA) Challenges Lincoln Enhanced Buyback Offer

Back in the spring, we reported on the Lincoln National “Enhanced Cash Surrender Value” offer the carrier began making to a select group of policyholders.  These unsolicited offers would allow policyholders to receive an amount higher than the current cash surrender value to return their policies to the carrier.

As we noted, the offers were similar to some made on mispriced variable annuities after the 2008-09 financial crisis.  Those annuities had guaranteed minimum income benefits that the carriers felt were too rich in the current investment climate.  The Lincoln offer, however, is the first enriched buyback offer we have seen for life insurance policies.

Life Insurance Settlement Association (LISA), a trade association that promotes the rights of policyholders selling their policies in the secondary market, is now challenging this enhanced offer.  In a letter addressed to the Commissioner of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, LISA, through its attorney, alleges that the enhanced cash value offer violates a “slew of consumer protection laws,” citing five separate Florida statutes, and accuses the carrier of “acting as a life settlement provider without the required license.”

According to the LISA letter, the offer was made on 5,300 Lincoln Life Guarantee SUL 2009 policies.  These survivorship policies, which pay out after the second insured dies, are often used in trust-owned life insurance (TOLI) trusts since estate taxes for a married couple are typically paid at the second death.

We oversee 81 policies that have received offers – so far.  While in both the offer letters and the FAQ brochure provided by Lincoln, the carrier notes that their “records indicate” the policyholder has “stopped making regular premium payments,” for a number of our policies, premiums have been paid to date, some each year since policy issue.  The carrier suggests that “missing premium payments can be an indication that your insurance needs may have changed” and asks the policyholder to “consider whether you still want or need the death benefit protection provided by this policy,” or whether the Lincoln enhanced offer “is more important to you than your need to leave a death benefit to your beneficiaries.”

LISA notes that in an attempt to “entice” policy owners to accept their offer Lincoln is using “many of the arguments made by life settlement providers in their marketing,” pressuring “the consumer to act” by providing the option for “a limited time only.”  According to the LISA letter, Lincoln seeks “to entice agents to solicit their clients” to take advantage of the offer “by holding out the possibility of additional commissions” if the client uses the proceeds to purchase a new Lincoln product, noting that “an internal replacement into any new policy or contract will be considered new business and agents will be compensated using the same rate schedule used for new premium.”

A life settlement also pays a commission to those who facilitate the transaction.  Whether a life settlement would be more beneficial for the policyholder is probably not contingent on commissions paid but the facts and circumstances around each policy, specifically the health of the policy and the insured.  Lincoln is offering to pay a premium of between 35% and 200% above the cash surrender value for the policies we manage, without having any knowledge of the insured’s current health. In a life settlement transaction, at least one life expectancy (LE) report is obtained, providing the investor with insight as to the health of the insured, which greatly affects the price offered.

Why would Lincoln do this?  In our portfolio of 81 policies, there is $292 million of death benefit.  Lincoln is offering an aggregate amount of $41 million to re-purchase the policies. The 81 policies have a total surrender value of $25 million, but without surrender charges, the cash values would be $31 million.  We have found that, in our portfolio, the average offer is slightly above the average premium paid. Lincoln is not paying much more than it has collected (and invested) since the policies were issued.  Lincoln is on record as saying that it is making the offer because for policies surrendered, they would “no longer be responsible for the death benefit on the policy.”  This would enable them to release “financial reserves and redeployment of the funds for a different use.”

The life insurance industry is struggling, and carriers are looking for alternative avenues to use their capital more profitably.  This will have repercussions, and in our next blog, we will discuss Voya’s decision to stop issuing life insurance and how it highlights changes in both the life insurance market in general and trust-owned life insurance (TOLI) in particular.

LISA is asking for the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation to investigate Lincoln’s Enhanced Cash Surrender Value Option, and to “take necessary enforcement action if, as we believe you will, you conclude that this program violates Florida law.”  As of today, none of our clients have taken Lincoln up on their offer, but almost all have until the end of March 2019 to do so.

We will report back with any updates.