Ameritas Urges Georgia Supreme Court To Void ‘Life Wager’ Policy
September 15, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. is pressing the Supreme Court of Georgia to rule that a controversial life insurance arrangement cannot be enforced, arguing the deal amounts to an illegal wager on human life. At the center of the dispute is an investor-backed life insurance policy that was later purchased by a trust, raising the question of whether such agreements violate Georgia’s long-standing prohibition on wagering contracts. Ameritas contends that allowing the trust to collect benefits would effectively transform life insurance into a speculative investment vehicle, undermining its intended role of providing financial security to families and policyholders. The case highlights broader concerns within the insurance industry about so-called “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI) policies, which regulators and courts nationwide have increasingly scrutinized for potential fraud and abuse. Insurer Challenges Investor-Backed Policy Ameritas contends that a trust holding the policy—purchased years after it was originally issued—has no legitimate right to collect death benefits. According to the insurer, such investor-driven transactions undermine the very purpose of life insurance, which is to provide financial security for families, not serve as a speculative investment vehicle. The company argues that allowing investors to profit from policies they never had an insurable interest in could open the door to widespread abuse of the insurance system. Regulators and industry groups have long warned that such practices distort the risk pool, drive up costs for legitimate policyholders, and erode public confidence in life insurance as a safety net. Ameritas maintains that if courts uphold these investor-backed arrangements, insurers may be forced to reevaluate underwriting practices and tighten compliance oversight to prevent similar disputes in the future. Stakes High for Life Settlement Industry The case is being closely watched in Georgia and beyond, as it could influence how courts treat investor-backed life settlement agreements. Industry experts warn that a ruling in favor of Ameritas could set a precedent that reshapes the market for secondary life insurance transactions. Legal observers note that these types of arrangements fall into the broader category of “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI), where third-party investors acquire policies with no insurable interest in the original policyholder. Courts across the country have wrestled with whether such contracts violate public policy by creating financial incentives tied to another person’s death. Ameritas argues that Georgia law, like many states, was designed to prevent such speculative practices, and the outcome of this case could set a pivotal precedent for how investor-backed life insurance is treated going forward. Broader National Trend Similar disputes have surfaced across the U.S., with insurers frequently challenging so-called “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI) policies. Courts have increasingly scrutinized these arrangements, questioning whether they violate long-standing public policy against wagering on human lives. In several states, high-profile rulings have either voided STOLI contracts outright or limited investors’ ability to enforce them, signaling a judicial shift toward stricter oversight. Regulators have also expressed concern that such practices could distort the life insurance market, inflating costs for policyholders who purchase coverage for legitimate family protection. Industry experts warn that unless clearer legal boundaries are established, these disputes will continue to surface, creating uncertainty for insurers, investors, and beneficiaries alike. What Comes Next in Georgia The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the trust may claim the policy’s benefits, or if the contract will be declared void as against public policy. A ruling is expected later this year and could have ripple effects for insurers, investors, and estate planners across the Southeast. Legal analysts note that the case could set a binding precedent in Georgia, influencing how courts in neighboring states approach similar investor-backed policies. A decision striking down the arrangement could embolden insurers to more aggressively challenge questionable policies, while a ruling in favor of the trust might encourage continued use of such structures in estate planning and investment circles. Either outcome is expected to draw close attention from financial advisors, policyholders, and lawmakers monitoring the balance between consumer protection and investment innovation in the life insurance market. For more context on life settlement regulation, visit National Association of Insurance Commissioners. FAQs: Ameritas Life Insurance Policy Georgia Ruling What is the core issue in the Ameritas case? Ameritas argues that the investor-backed life insurance policy is an illegal “wager on life” and should not be enforced. What is a STOLI policy? A STOLI, or stranger-originated life insurance policy, involves investors purchasing life insurance on strangers, often raising public policy concerns. Why does this case matter beyond Georgia? The ruling could influence national treatment of investor-backed life settlements, shaping future litigation and regulatory approaches. When is a decision expected? The Georgia Supreme Court is reviewing arguments now, with a ruling anticipated before the end of 2025. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for timely updates on insurance litigation and financial fraud cases. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Second Circuit Orders Resentencing in $600M Medical Billing Fraud Case
September 12, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — A federal appeals court has affirmed the conviction of a Long Island medical biller who orchestrated a $600 million medical billing fraud scheme but sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s continued focus on accountability in one of the largest medical billing fraud cases ever prosecuted. Conviction Upheld, But Sentencing Reconsidered The Second Circuit panel ruled that the evidence of fraud was overwhelming, leaving no question about the defendant’s guilt. However, the court determined that errors in the original sentencing required the case to be remanded for further review. The decision leaves the conviction intact while opening the door for a new assessment of the punishment. $600 Million Fraud Scheme Detailed According to federal prosecutors, the biller submitted fraudulent insurance claims totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and went so far as to impersonate professional athletes, including an NBA player and NFL figures, to further the scheme. The elaborate fraud exploited weaknesses in the medical billing system, resulting in one of the largest recoveries ever pursued in a single case. Broader Implications for Health Care Fraud Enforcement Legal analysts say the ruling highlights the importance of strong sentencing procedures in health care fraud cases. It also reinforces the government’s aggressive stance against schemes that threaten the stability of insurance systems and increase costs for policyholders nationwide. With medical billing fraud continuing to rise, this case may set a standard for future prosecutions. For official documentation and case details, readers can review filings at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. FAQs: $600M Medical Billing Fraud Case What was the fraud about? The defendant submitted fraudulent insurance claims worth approximately $600 million, using false identities and impersonations to support the scheme. What did the Second Circuit decide? The appeals court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing due to procedural errors in the original judgment. Why is resentencing significant? It ensures sentencing procedures meet federal standards, giving the defendant a fair hearing while maintaining accountability for large-scale fraud. How does this affect future health care fraud cases? The ruling reinforces both the seriousness of medical billing fraud and the need for careful sentencing, likely influencing how future fraud prosecutions are handled. Stay informed on major insurance fraud and health care litigation by subscribing to JacobiJournal.com. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Federal Court Dismisses Hurricane Maria Fraud Suit Against Insurance Adjuster
September 10, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – A fraud suit filed by an insurer has been dismissed by a Puerto Rico federal judge, who ruled against allegations that a public adjuster inflated damage calculations related to Hurricane Maria. The case, which alleged insurance fraud in the aftermath of the 2017 storm, was thrown out after the court determined the claims were legally insufficient to proceed. The outcome of the fraud suit highlights the challenges insurers face when trying to prove exaggerated or false claims in court. Without clear evidence of intent, such fraud suits often fail to advance, signaling that judges will require a higher burden of proof in disaster-related insurance disputes. Court Rejects Insurer’s Allegations The insurer had argued that the public adjuster exaggerated the scale of storm-related damages suffered by a Puerto Rican municipality, seeking higher payouts than warranted. However, the federal court concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold to prove fraudulent intent. The dismissal ends the litigation, at least for now, though appeals remain possible. Hurricane Maria’s Long Legal Aftermath Hurricane Maria caused catastrophic losses across Puerto Rico, leading to years of disputes between policyholders, municipalities, and insurers. Allegations of fraud, inflated claims, and delayed payouts have become a recurring theme in litigation tied to disaster recovery. This case highlights how courts are scrutinizing fraud claims while balancing the need to ensure fair compensation for storm victims. Broader Implications for Insurance Fraud Cases Legal analysts say the ruling underscores the difficulty insurers face in proving fraud against adjusters, particularly in the high-stakes context of natural disasters. With billions in claims tied to hurricanes and other catastrophic events, the decision could influence how insurers pursue similar cases in the future. For access to official case filings and federal court rulings, visit the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. FAQs: Hurricane Maria Fraud Suit What was the lawsuit about? An insurer alleged that a public adjuster inflated damage estimates for a Puerto Rican town after Hurricane Maria, leading to excessive insurance claims. Why did the court dismiss the case? The judge ruled that the evidence did not sufficiently prove fraud or misrepresentation by the public adjuster. Does this ruling impact future insurance fraud suits? Yes. It highlights the challenges insurers face in proving fraud in disaster-related claims, potentially shaping strategies in future litigation. What does this mean for Hurricane Maria recovery claims? It reflects the ongoing complexity of resolving insurance disputes tied to the storm and shows that fraud claims require strong, verifiable evidence to succeed. Stay updated on insurance fraud litigation and public integrity cases by subscribing to JacobiJournal.com. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Ex-Westminster Police Officer Charged with Insurance Fraud After Partying on Disability Leave
Former Westminster police officer charged with workers’ compensation fraud after being spotted partying and traveling during medical leave. Tracey Leong reports for NBC4 News at 11 p.m., May 20, 2025. Credit: NBC Los Angeles — https://www.nbclosangeles.com/ May 21, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – A former Westminster police officer faces felony charges for allegedly committing insurance fraud and workers’ compensation fraud during her disability leave, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office announced. Nicole Brown, 39, from Riverside, faces nine felony counts for making false statements to receive compensation. She also faces six counts of fraudulent insurance claims. Prosecutors added a sentencing enhancement for aggravated white-collar crime involving over $100,000. Her stepfather, attorney Peter Gregory Schuman, 57, from Buena Park, also faces felony charges for filing fraudulent insurance claims and conspiring to commit illegal acts. Injury and Disability Insurance Fraud Allegations Brown injured her forehead while arresting a suspect in March 2022. An emergency room doctor treated her and cleared her to return to work. However, she later claimed a severe concussion and went on temporary disability leave, which is now at the center of the insurance fraud investigation initiated by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Evidence of Contradictory Activities During this time, Brown reportedly attended the Stagecoach Music Festival in April 2023 and was seen traveling and partying. Witnesses reported her dancing and drinking, contradicting her claims of severe symptoms. Investigators also found that Brown took part in two 5K races, snowboarded, skied, attended several soccer conferences, went to baseball games, played golf, and visited Disneyland. She also enrolled in online courses, despite complaining about screen sensitivity. Defense Statement Brown’s lawyer, Brian Gurwitz, said, “Ms. Brown suffered a debilitating head injury while on duty. She plans to vigorously challenge these allegations.” Legal Consequences and Next Steps The charges highlight increased scrutiny of workers’ compensation claims when claimants’ activities conflict with their reported injuries. Brown and Schuman face serious legal consequences if convicted. Stay updated with local crime and legal news from Orange County. FAQs: About Insurance Fraud and Disability Leave Abuse What qualifies as insurance fraud during disability leave? Insurance fraud occurs when an individual knowingly provides false or misleading information to receive disability benefits. In law enforcement or public service, this often includes exaggerating injuries or continuing to claim benefits after recovery. How do investigators detect insurance fraud in disability leave cases? Insurance fraud investigators often rely on surveillance footage, social media activity, medical record reviews, and witness testimony to identify discrepancies between a claimant’s reported injuries and actual behavior. In disability fraud cases, evidence of physical activity—like traveling or partying—while on leave can trigger prosecution. What are the legal consequences of committing insurance fraud while on leave? Penalties for insurance fraud may include felony charges, restitution orders, termination of employment, and loss of future benefits. In California, convicted individuals may also face imprisonment, fines, and professional disqualification. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for trusted updates on law enforcement misconduct, insurance fraud cases, and public integrity prosecutions across the U.S. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com: