Volume 15, Number 3
Negotiating a Structured Settlement
BY WAYNE WAGNER
Let’s say you are negotiating a personal injury claim and the defendant/insurer has proposed a structured settlement that was developed by the defendant/insurer’s structured settlement broker.
The claimant is a 35-year-old male with a 35-year-old wife and a seven-year-old daughter. He was injured in an automobile accident but liability is questionable. Allegedly, the claimant cannot perform the duties of his previous employment and is expected to be a minimum wage performer for his work life expectancy. No future medical care is indicated.
The structured settlement proposed will yield $2,000 per month for his life or 30 years (guaranteed for 30 years to protect his family against his early demise). A college fund of $10,000 will be paid in August of each year in which his daughter will be the ages 18, 19, 20, and 21. Finally, a series of guaranteed lump-sum payments will be paid every five years through the next 30 years. The total payments through the claimant’s 40-year life expectancy is $1.2 million. The annuity needed to generate these benefits would cost a premium of $482,965.
In addition to the structured portion, the defendant/insurer is offering $500,000 up front in cash for all immediate family needs, attorney fees, and past expenses of any nature.
The cover letter accompanying the proposal states that all of the payments of the settlement are tax-free. That would mean that the $717,035 growth in the structured settlement would pass to the claimant without income taxation, which is a significant benefit.
As a lawyer, you have always been intrigued by structured settlements (also known as settlement annuities or periodic payments) but have never consummated one. This one is particularly attractive because it takes care of all of the claimant family’s needs, and the total cost of $982,965 ($500,000 up- front cash plus the annuity premium of $482,965 is within the broad settlement range for this claim. It is extremely important for you to verify that the benefits will be tax-free and to negotiate and document the settlement in a manner that does not jeopardize its tax-free status. It does not matter whether you are the claimant’s lawyer or the defendant/insurer’s lawyer. It is in both parties’ interest to verify and preserve the tax-free status of the structured settlement proposal. Tax-free status enhances the value of the offer and helps to bridge the gap between the litigants.
Evolution of Structures
The first recorded structured settlements were used in the Thalidomide claims in the 1960s. Expectant mothers took Thalidomide to ease the symptoms of morning sickness. Unfortunately, Thalidomide often deformed the fetus. Consequently, various suits begged for a financial product that would provide benefits for the lifetime of these children (70 to 80 years), who were expected to outlive their parents.
An annuity contract was introduced to the process. An annuity is merely a contract issued by a life insurance company that guarantees a certain future payout in exchange for an immediate premium. It is also one of the few mechanisms that can guarantee a payment stream for a lifetime.
The structured settlements set up in the Thalidomide claims established the obligation to make the future periodic payments in the settlement agreement. The defendant/insurer then purchased and continued to own an annuity that guaranteed the same payments required by the settlement agreement. For convenience, the defendant/insurer instructed the annuity provider to make the payments directly to the claimant, thus providing instant and direct payment administration of the obligation.
There were no guidelines for structured settlements in those days. The closest arrangement to structured settlements were deferred compensation agreements, where the benefits were tax-deferred as long as the recipient had neither actual nor constructive receipt of the funding asset (if any). Consequently, the Thalidomide claims were set up in a manner analogous to deferred compensation arrangements. For this reason, everything was established by the defendant/insurer. The claimant had no hand in setting up the arrangement except to accept the benefits.
The parties to the Thalidomide settlements were hoping that these settlements would be treated as tax-free and not tax-deferred, since at that time the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 104 (a)(2) excluded from income "the amount of any damages received (whether by suit or agreement) on account of personal injuries or sickness." However, the I.R.C. was silent as to "payments over time," which would later be called "structured settlements" or "periodic payments." The Thalidomide litigants felt that their best chance of receiving tax-free status would be to avoid constructive or actual receipt of the annuity by the claimant.
Related Tax Authorities
They were right! In 1979 the IRS issued two Revenue Rulings: 79-220 and 79-313. These Rulings put forward the following requirements for a structured settlement to be tax-free under § 104:
• The claimant is a mere recipient of the benefits.
• The annuity is purchased at the convenience of the obligor/defendant.
• The claimant has neither actual nor constructive receipt of the annuity or the economic benefit of the lump-sum amount that was invested to yield the future payments (i.e., the premium).
• The claimant does not have the right to accelerate any payment or increase or decrease the amount of the payments.
The Revenue Rulings settled the tax issue for the claimant, but left the defendant/insurer on the hook for the duration of the obligation as owner of the annuity. Defendant/insurers are accustomed to a complete release once they pay their money, but this result was unattainable in the 1970s.
The defendant/insurer’s problem was solved with the passage of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act of 1982. First, Congress added to I.R.C. § 104 (a)(2) the following italicized words "whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments." The Conference Committee reports made it clear that Congress intended to codify the Revenue Rulings, rather than change them, and reaffirmed the prohibition against actual or constructive receipt.
Additionally, this legislation enacted new I.R.C. § 130, which paved the way for the assignment of the periodic payment obligation to a third-party assignee, thus allowing the original defendant/insurer to be completely released. The assignee would take over the obligation and own the annuity instead of the original defendant/insurer. An assignment under § 130 is referred to as a qualified assignment. Some of the requirements of § 130 are as follows:
1. Originally, only liability claims that qualified under § 104 (a)(2) could be assigned. This was amended in 1997 to include workers’ compensation claims under § 104 (a)(1) filed after August 5, 1997.
2. The only assets that qualify to fund a qualified assignment are (a) annuity contracts, or (b) any obligation of the United States.
3. The periodic payments must be fixed and determinable as to the amount and time of payment.
4. Although not in the original act, § 130 was amended in 1988 to allow the recipient to be a secured creditor of the funding asset.
I.R.C. § 130 paved the way for third-party assignments because it clarified the tax consequences to the third-party assignee of ownership of the funding asset (annuity or U.S. government obligation). Other arrangements were developed later to accomplish the same objectives in claims that do not qualify under
§ 130. Among these are non-qualified assignments, which are used in limited circumstances, and reinsurance agreements, which can be used only when the original obligation is insured. Both are valid alternatives; but the vast majority of structured settlement activity today occurs via the qualified assignment.
After the particulars of the settlement are negotiated, the settlement agreement and release must be drafted. Normally, the structured settlement broker will supply the forms necessary, and for the most part, they are fairly standard. These agreements differ from cash settlement documents in the following ways:
1. The consideration paragraph is split between the cash and the periodic payments portion. There is usually a reference to the I.R.C. § 104 (a)(2), which governs the damages being settled, and any allocation to other elements of damages that may be taxable. (This will be discussed below.)
2. The settlement agreement and release contains a statement that the claimant cannot alter the amounts or timing of the payments, nor can the claimant sell, mortgage, encumber, anticipate, or assign the benefits.
3. The settlement agreement and release contains a beneficiary paragraph governing the succession of guaranteed payments.
4. The settlement agreement and release contains a provision that the claimant specifically consents to the qualified assignment to the assignee, which the defendant/insurer may execute; and that upon such assignment, the claimant will look only to the assignee for performance since the original defendant/insurer will be released.
5. The settlement agreement and release contains a provision that the defendant/insurer or assignee may purchase an annuity from the annuity provider and shall maintain all rights of ownership.
6. The settlement agreement and release contains a statement as to how the obligation to make each payment shall be discharged.
All of the above are necessary to define the obligation to make the future periodic payments.
At the same time that the settlement agreement is executed, the qualified assignment is signed by the defendant/insurer and sent to the assignee for its signature. Normally, this is a two-party document between the defendant/insurer and the assignee. Occasionally, the claimant also will be required to sign the qualified assignment, as some of the forms have additional release language requiring the claimant’s consent.
What types of damages can be structured to yield a tax-free return? Aside from workers’ compensation claims under § 104 (a)(1), the answer was clarified by the 1996 italicized additions to § 104 (a)(2): "The amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries and physical sickness." Obviously, Congress was trying to weed out some elements of damages by disqualifying them from § 104.
For years the courts had flip-flopped and different jurisdictions had disagreed about the nature of punitive "damages." Are they "damages" or "penalties"? If penalties, they are taxable. Congress weighed in on the "penalty" side. The only exception in which punitive damages are tax-free occurs when such damages are received in a wrongful death action if the applicable state law allows only punitive damages to be awarded in a wrongful death action.
By adding the word "physical" twice, Congress disqualified damages that did not have their origin in a physical injury or physical sickness, such as employment discrimination or injury to reputation claims. The act redefined "emotional distress" as a non-physical injury or sickness for the purpose of determining the origin of the claim. It is the origin of the claim that governs whether it qualifies.
But, if the origin of the claim test is satisfied, all damages, except punitive damages, that flow from the claim are excluded from income whether or not the recipient of the damages is the injured party.
"All damages" include economic damages (loss of income) and noneconomic damages (pain and suffering and even emotional distress). Derivative claims—such as loss of consortium, wrongful death actions, or bystander claims—are also embraced despite the fact that the claimant may not be the person physically injured. Since all of these damages qualify under § 104, they are tax-free and assignable under § 130. Another element common to personal injury claims that needs to be classified is prejudgment interest. This element is taxable. It is interest on the damages and not an element of damage itself.
In many claims, it is common to have all of these elements: loss of income, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, punitive damages, bystander claims, and prejudgment interest. If all of these elements are pled, the settlement agreement must allocate the various segments of the consideration to the various elements of "damages." The tax treatment of "loss of income" falls under § 104 (a)(2), whereas "prejudgment interest" is taxable. Even though an allocation between the litigants is not binding on the IRS, it is advisable to make a reasonable allocation in order to establish a defensible position as to which amounts are taxable and which are not—and the rationale used. Otherwise, the IRS would be free to allocate as it deems appropriate subject to rebuttal by the claimant.
Some elements of personal injury claims still can be structured, even though they do not qualify under § 104. Non-qualification just means that it will not be tax-free and cannot be assigned under § 130. It might still be desirable to structure a large punitive element to make it tax-deferred.
Suppose you have a claim with a potential for $1 million in punitive damages. If you are successful, can you imagine the tax bite on $1 million taken in one year? It might be better to receive $75,000 per year for the next 20 years. Its $1.5 million future payout would cost the defendant/insurer only $900,000. But the cumulative tax on $75,000 each year is considerably lower than that on $1 million in one year because the tax rate is so much lower for $75,000.
A "cash basis" taxpayer can acquire tax-deferred treatment on amounts to be received in the future as long as he or she does not have actual or constructive receipt of the asset (if any) purchased to fund those payments or the premium paid. It must be an arm’s-length transaction that creates the obligation to pay the future payments. It should be negotiated on the same manner as a tax-free settlement, with the defendant/insurer handling the premium and asset purchase.
Negotiating a structured settlement in this situation can obviously be advantageous to both sides. One problem: If it does not qualify under § 104, it does not qualify for a § 130 qualified assignment. How will it be orchestrated?
This is the function of the non-qualified assignment programs and the reinsurance agreements mentioned earlier. A non-qualified assignment is established in a similar manner as a qualified assignment without the references to §§ 104 and 130. A reinsurance agreement is set up similar to a non-qualified assignment except that there is no mention of either an assignment or an annuity. Through a reinsurance agreement, the reinsurer merely assumes the obligation and retains the entire premium.
New variations and new products evolve periodically. Each product has its own function and restrictions. If you introduce the right product to the appropriate situation, the result can be extremely gratifying. Since these products are being developed for an emerging non-qualified market, expert tax advice should be sought for each specific use.
Structures and Trusts
Sometimes it is advantageous to combine the tax efficiency of a structured settlement with the flexibility of a trust. Quite often it is desirable to use a trust to accomplish specific objectives, such as additional spendthrift protection, or in order to manage the life-style of a severely impaired claimant. A trust can use the talents of the trustee and, if authorized, can hire other disciplines, such as medical care managers, to accomplish the trust objectives. However, if all of the settlement proceeds are initially dumped into the trust, any retained earnings each year will be taxed in the trust at fairly higher rates, a considerable drain on the trust’s resources.
A better way to maximize resources is to seed the trust with a small amount initially and to set up a structured settlement to periodically re-seed the trust every one or two years; or at specific times, such as the college years. The structured settlement grows tax-free outside of the trust, sheltering the resource from excessive taxation. Once the funds are paid into the trust, they can be used to forward the purposes of the trust. A considerable amount of unnecessary taxes can be saved with this arrangement.
The Structure Expert
In most situations, a structured settlement broker is involved. He is a considerable resource of information who will be able to clarify unclear or uncertain points. Use this resource since it is available to you at no charge.
Since the late 1970s the federal government has consistently lent support and encouragement to the formation of structured settlements. It has verified the basic tax-free status that qualifies under § 104. It has paved the way to release the original defendant/insurer via a qualified assignment and expanded the assignment process to workers’ compensation claims. Armed with the above information, the practitioner should be able to successfully negotiate a structured settlement with the desired tax treatment.
Wayne Wagner is a lawyer who operates the New Orleans office of Ringler Associates, Inc., a nationwide firm that specializes in assisting litigants in negotiating and funding structured settlements.
A structured settlement is a negotiated financial or insurance arrangement through which a claimant agrees to resolve a personal injury tort claim by receiving part or all of a settlement in the form of periodic payments on an agreed schedule, rather than as a lump sum. As part of the negotiations, a structured settlement may be offered by the defendant or requested by the plaintiff. Ultimately both parties must agree on the terms of settlement. A settlement may allow the parties to a lawsuit to reduce legal and other costs by avoiding trial. Structured settlements have become part of the statutory tort law of several common law countries including Australia, Canada, England and the United States.
Structured settlements were first utilized in Canada as part of the settlement of claims made on behalf of children affected by Thalidomide. Structured settlements are now often used in product liability and pharmaceutical injury cases (such as litigation involving birth defects from Thalidomide).
Structured settlements may include income tax and spendthrift provisions. Often the periodic payments will be funded through the purchase of one or more annuities, that generate the future payments. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called periodical payments, and when incorporated into a trial judgment may be called a "structured judgment".
In the United States
Structured settlements became more popular in the United States during the 1970s as an alternative to lump sum settlements. The increased popularity was due to several rulings by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an increase in personal injury awards, and higher interest rates. The IRS rulings stated that if certain requirements were met, claimants would owe no Federal income tax on the amounts received. Higher interest rates result in lower present values, hence lower cost of funding of future periodic payments.
In the United States, structured settlement laws and regulations have been enacted at both the federal and state levels. Federal structured settlement laws include various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. State structured settlement laws include structured settlement protection statutes and periodic payment of judgment statutes. Forty-seven of the states have structured settlement protection acts created using a model promulgated by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators ("NCOIL"). Of the 47 states, 37 are based in whole or in part on the NCOIL model act. Medicaid and Medicare laws and regulations affect structured settlements. A structured settlement may be used in conjunction with settlement planning tools that help preserve a claimant's Medicare benefits. A Structured Medicare Set Aside Arrangement (MSA) will generally cost less than a non-structured MSA because of amortization of the future cash flow over the claimant's life expectancy, as opposed to funding all the payments otherwise due in the future in a single, non-discounted sum today.
Structured settlements have been endorsed by many of the nation's largest disability rights organizations, including the American Association of People with Disabilities. and for a time there was a Congressional Structured Settlement Caucus.
The typical structured settlement arises and is structured as follows: An injured party (the claimant) comes to a negotiated settlement of a tort suit with the defendant (or its insurance carrier) pursuant to a settlement agreement that provides as consideration, in exchange for the claimant's securing the dismissal of the lawsuit, an agreement by the defendant (or, more commonly, its insurer) to make a series of periodic payments.
If any of the periodic payments are life-contingent (i.e. the obligation to make a payment is contingent on someone continuing to be alive), then the claimant (or whoever is determined to be the measuring life) is named as the annuitant or measuring life under the annuity. In some instances the purchasing company may purchase a life insurance policy as a hedge in case of death in a settlement transfer.
The defendant, or the property/casualty insurance company, generally assigns its periodic payment obligation to a third party by way of a qualified assignment ("assigned case"). An assignment is said to be "qualified" if it satisfies the criteria set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 130. Qualification of the assignment is important to assignment companies because without it the amount they receive to induce them to accept periodic payment obligations would be considered income for federal income tax purposes. If an assignment qualifies under Section 130, however, the amount received is excluded from the income of the assignment company. This provision of the tax code was enacted to encourage assigned cases; without it, assignment companies would owe federal income taxes but would typically have no source from which to make the payments.
The qualified assignment company receives money from the defendant or property/casualty insurer, and in turn purchases a "qualified funding asset" to finance the assigned periodic payment obligation. Pursuant to IRC 130(d) a "qualified funding asset" may be an annuity or an obligation of the United States government.
In an assigned case, the defendant or property/casualty company does not wish to retain the long-term periodic payment obligation on its books. Accordingly, the defendant or property/casualty insurer transfers the obligation, through a legal device called a qualified assignment, to a third party. The third party, called an assignment company, will require the defendant or property/casualty company to pay it an amount sufficient to enable it to buy an annuity that will fund its newly accepted periodic payment obligation. If the claimant consents to the transfer of the periodic payment obligation (either in the settlement agreement or, failing that, in a special form of qualified assignment known as a qualified assignment and release), the defendant and/or its property/casualty company has no further liability to make the periodic payments. This method of substituting the obligor is desirable for defendants or property/casualty companies that do not want to retain the periodic payment obligation on their books. A qualified assignment is also advantageous for the claimant as it will not have to rely on the continued credit of the defendant or property/casualty company as a general creditor. Typically, an assignment company is an affiliate of the life insurance company from which the annuity is purchased.
In the less common unassigned case, the defendant or property/casualty insurer retains the periodic payment obligation and funds it by purchasing an annuity from a life insurance company, thereby offsetting its obligation with a matching asset. The payment stream purchased under the annuity matches exactly, in timing and amounts, the periodic payments agreed to in the settlement agreement. The defendant or property/casualty company owns the annuity and names the claimant as the payee under the annuity, thereby directing the annuity issuer to send payments directly to the claimant. One of the reasons an unassigned case is less popular is that the obligation is not truly off the books, and the defendant or casualty insurer retains a contingent liability. While a default is a rare occurrence, contingent liability did come into play with the liquidation of Executive Life Insurance Company of New York. Some annuitants suffered shortfalls, and a number of obligors at the wrong end of unassigned cases made up the difference.
In 1982, Congress adopted special tax rules to encourage the use of structured settlements to provide long-term financial security to seriously injured victims and their families. These structured settlement rules, as codified in the enactment of the Periodic Payment Settlement Act of 1982, which established Section 130 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) and in amendments to section 104(a)(2) of the Code, have been in place working effectively since then. In the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress extended the structured settlements to worker's compensation to cover physical injuries suffered in the workplace. A "structured settlement" under the tax code's terms is an "arrangement" that meets the following requirements.
Damages on the account of personal physical injury, physical sickness and workers compensation are income tax free due to exclusions provided in IRC section 104. The structured settlement tax rules enacted by Congress lay down a bright line path for a structured settlement. Once the plaintiff and defense have settled the tort claim in exchange for periodic payments to be made by the defendant (or the defendant's insurer), the full amount of the periodic payments constitutes tax-free damages to the victim. The defendant, or its insurer, may assign its periodic payment obligation to a qualified assignment company (typically a single purpose affiliate of a life insurer) that funds its assumed obligation with an annuity purchased from its affiliated life insurer. The rules also permit the assignee to fund its periodic payment obligation under the structured settlement via U.S. Treasury obligations. However, this U.S. Treasury obligation approach is used much less frequently because of lower returns and the relative inflexibility of payment schedules available under Treasury obligations. In this way, with a qualified assignment, there is a legal novation, the defendant or insurer can close its books on the liability, and the claimant can receive the long-term financial security of an annuity (or annuities) issued by one or more financially strong life insurance companies.
What makes this work is the tax exclusion to the qualified assignment company afforded by IRC section 130. Without the tax exclusion, the cost of assignment would be higher, because the assignment company would need to recognize the premium as income. The resulting net after tax amount would be insufficient to fund the assumed obligation.
To qualify for special tax treatment, a structured settlement must meet the following requirements:
- A structured settlement must be established by:
- A suit or agreement for periodic payment of damages excludable from gross income under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2)); or
- An agreement for the periodic payment of compensation under any workers’ compensation law excludable under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(a)(1) (26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1)); and
- The periodic payments must be of the character described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Internal Revenue Code Section 130(c)(2) (26 U.S.C. § 130(c)(2))) and must be payable by a person who:
- Is a party to the suit or agreement or to a workers' compensation claim; or
- By a person who has assumed the liability for such periodic payments under a qualified assignment in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 130 (26 U.S.C. § 130).
Sales of rights to structured settlement payments
Main article: Structured settlement factoring transaction
A claimant who has agreed to a negotiated structured settlement elects to receive part of their settlement money at the time of settlement, and part of their settlement money in the future through a negotiated, customized schedule of periodic payments that are "fixed and determinable as to amount and time of payment." The life insurance companies who underwrite these periodic payment obligations and the associated qualified assignment companies, must comply with the Internal Revenue Code 130, which, in part, does not allow for acceleration or modification of payments. Options exist for structured settlement annuitants to sell or transfer the rights to future periodic payments to purchasers of structured settlement payment rights, mostly known as structured settlement factoring companies. Some life insurers, such as Berkshire Hathaway Life Insurance Company of Nebraska, and former structured annuity issuers Allstate Life Insurance Company and Symetra, offer to buy part or all of one's structured settlement payment rights in return for a lump sum cash provided such transaction complies with IRC §5891.
Although many beneficiaries of a structured settlement find that the settlement suites their needs, some may experience changed financial circumstances and find themselves unable to obtain funds through conventional financing or other sources. They may want to obtain funds from the structured settlement in order to pay down debt, help pay for a house, help pay for a child's college tuition, or for other significant financial needs. At the same time, companies that buy structured settlements have been known to take advantage of beneficiaries' circumstances in order to obtain the settlements for a relatively small price.
The act of the sale and purchase of structured settlement payment rights is known as a structured settlement factoring transaction. For example, a structured settlement payment stream of 20 years could be transferred in exchange for one discounted payment now.
Any sale of structured settlement payment rights will require the approval of a judge to comply with the local state structured settlement protection act and IRC 5891. Enforcement of structured settlement Approval is not a given. In 2012, a Tennessee Chancery Court issued an order denying a payee's transfer of workers' compensation settlement payments under a structured settlement agreement. Judge William E. Lantrip held that (i) workers' compensation payments are not within the definition of "structured settlement " under the Tennessee Structured Settlement Protection Act, Tenn. Code. Ann. §47-18-2601 
Enforcement of the state system of structured settlement protection acts has come under heavy scrutiny after a highly publicized story of alleged abuse of a cluster of annuitants who received structured settlements as part of lead paint settlements in Baltimore City appeared in the Washington Post on August 25, 2015. leading to rapidly passed reform of the Maryland Structured Settlement Protection Act and lawsuits brought against the Chevy Chase MD company that originated the deals and a number of its executives by the Maryland Attorney General, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a plaintiff's class action.
On September 14, 2017 a class action law suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging Portsmouth Virginia Circuit Court judges were complicit in an "Annuity Fraud Enterprise" scheme, in which a Virginia lawyer and 79th District delegate Steve Heretick was the central figure, representing JG Wentworth, Seneca One, 321 Henderson Receivables and other settlement purchasers, that allegedly violated the rights of thousands of structured settlement annuitants. Plaintiffs allege violations of RICO statutes against multiple defendants, violations of right to due process an seek a constructive trust. against all defendants and all nominal defendants which include several life insurers who issue the annuities.
- Structured Settlements, (Prof.) John P. Weir, Carswell Publishing (now, Thomson Reuters), 1984 – 293 pages. ISBN 0-459-35780-8, KE 1237.W44 1984
- Structured Settlements: Alternative Approach to the Settling of Claims, Joseph Huver, 1992. ISBN 0-87218-342-4
- Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments, Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph Julnes Dehner, Patrick J. Hindert. Published by Law Journal Press, 1986. ISBN 1-58852-037-4
- ^Edwards, J. Stanley (2009). Tort Law for Legal Assistants. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning. pp. 197–8. ISBN 1-4283-1849-6.
- ^Hindert, Daniel (1986). Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgements. New York, NY: Law Journal Press. pp. 1–36. ISBN 1-58852-037-4.
- ^Riccardi, Anthony H.; Ireland, Thomas R. (Fall 2000). "Structured Judgments and Periodic Payments in New York: A Unique and Complex System for Tort Awards". Journal of Legal Economics. 10 (5).
- ^Johnson, Denise (5 August 2013). "The Beginnings of Structured Settlements". Claims Journal. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^Bendian, Marc (September 2005). Structured Settlement Payments and Periodic Judgements. Law Journal Press.
- ^ abc"26 U.S. Code § 5891 - Structured settlement factoring transactions". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"Structured Settlements & People with Disabilities". National Structured Settlement Trade Association. 26 March 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"Congress' Obligation on Structured-Settlement Fraud - Commentary". Roll Call. The Economist Group. 29 August 2014.
- ^Larson, Aaron (14 December 2016). "What is a Structured Settlement". ExpertLaw. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^Wagner, Wayne (July 1999). "Negotiating a Structured Settlement". GPSolo. 15 (3). Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"26 U.S. Code § 130 - Certain personal injury liability assignments". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
- ^Nowotny, Gerald R. (January 2013). "Tax Law: Contingency Fees and Structured Settlement Annuities". GPSolo. 30 (1). Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"Executive Life Insurance Company of New York - Policyholder Information". NOLHGA. The National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations.
- ^"JCX-58-82". The Joint Committee on Taxation. 22 December 1982. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
- ^Public L. No. 97-473, 96 Stat. 2605 (Jan. 14, 1983).
- ^"26 U.S. Code § 104 - Compensation for injuries or sickness". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^ abc"26 U.S. Code § 130 - Certain personal injury liability assignments". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"Maryland attorney general urges structured settlement reforms". The Baltmore Sun. Associated Press. 25 February 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"Tennessee Court Denies Transfer of Workers' Compensation Payments". The National Law Review. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. 2012-07-05. Retrieved 2012-07-12.
- ^McCoy, Terrence (25 August 2015). "How companies make millions off lead-poisoned, poor blacks". Washington Post. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
- ^"Maryland Senate Bill 734"(PDF). General Assembly of Maryland. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
- ^Wells, Carrie (24 July 2017). "Attorney General's office and attorneys spar over settlement for lead paint victims". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^"CFPB Sues Access Funding for Scamming Lead-Paint Poisoning Victims Out of Settlement Money". CFPB. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 21 November 2016. Retrieved 5 September 2017.
- ^Larry G. Dockery, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v Stephen E. Heretick, 321 Henderson Receivables, LLC, JG Wentworth Receivables, LLC, Seneca One Finance, Inc., Structured Settlement Investments, LP, Structured Settlement Purchaser John Doe Inc. Purchaser Defendants 1-100 and John Doe Individual Defendants 1-100 and New York Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Symetra et al*. United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:2017:cv-04114-MMB