Structured Settlements 4Real®Blog 2026
Structured settlements expert John Darer reviews the latest structured settlements and settlement planning information and news, and provides expert opinion and highly regarded commentary. that is spicy, Informative, irreverent and effective for over 20 years.
Recent Posts
- Comparable Annuity Quotes in New York Structured Settlement Transfer Petitions Ripe for Scrutiny
- 🍨🔥 HOT SLUDGE DUMBDAY
- Michael Saylor’s Strategy Sells 3,588 BTC — A Cause for Concern for Anyone Still Selling “Never Sell” Narratives
- Qualified Assignee vs. Court Ordered Assignee: Key Differences in Structured Settlement Terminology
- The Superseding Indictment against Joshua Wander: How a Collapsed Servicing System Hurt Real People and Exposed a Multi‑Year Deception📆⚠️
about
Category: South Dakota Structured Settlement
-
by John Darer CLU ChFC MSSC CeFT RSP CLTC As more structured settlement designs reference external indices such as CPI‑U, the terminology used to describe them has expanded. Words like index‑linked, index‑based, and occasionally index‑backed appear in product materials and industry discussions, sometimes without clear differentiation. This brief guide provides a neutral, carrier‑friendly framework to…
-
Pre-funding a structured settlement can expedite the closing process and safeguard favorable rates in fluctuating interest environments, benefiting all parties involved. Insurance companies often issue pre-fund refund letters, minimizing risks for defendants. This approach is particularly useful in complex court systems like New York, ensuring timely funding of settlements.
-
If the payee entered into the structured settlement within 5 years prior to the date of the transfer agreement, then the transferee must provide notice to the payee’s attorney of record at the time the structured settlement was created California Code, Insurance Code – INS § 10139.5(f)(2)(L)
-
In December 2006, a legal opinion raised doubts about the ability of assignment companies to restructure periodic payments, leading many insurers to withdraw from commutation programs, favoring factoring companies. However, a 2009 IRS ruling clarified that assignment companies could restructure obligations without tax implications, allowing insurers to resume commutation offerings.