You are here: / / POST-DEATH INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING...

POST-DEATH INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012).

The Second Department interpreted an ambiguous term in an Insurance Law statute to determine the appropriate post-death interest to be paid on an annuity. The interest rate at the time of payment should not be applied to entire period between the death of the annuitant (1998) and the date of payment (2012). Rather, the historical interest rates during that time should be applied:

​

On or about November 8, 2012, TFLIC [defendant insurer] sent the plaintiff a check for $142,163.54, representing the value of Annuity #8231 on the date of … death ($132,071.06), plus $10,092.48 in interest, calculated at an annual rate of 0.5%. The estate accepted the payment “without waiving any rights that [the plaintiff] may have to interest since the date of death, costs and expenses resulting from your failure to provide this annuity upon the decedent’s death.” The estate later commenced this action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, breach of contract for the delay in paying the proceeds of Annuity #8231, and demanding, inter alia, prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 9% (see CPLR 5004). …

​

… [T]he calculation of interest on the proceeds due under Annuity #8231 must be determined in accordance with the principles set forth in Insurance Law § 3214, which applies specifically to interest paid on the proceeds of an annuity following the death of the annuitant. …

​

The Supreme Court erred … in determining that the rate of interest due on the proceeds of Annuity #8231 pursuant to Insurance Law § 3214(c) should be determined solely by reference to the rate in effect at the time of payment—in this case, 0.5%.

Insurance Law § 3214(c), entitled “Interest upon proceeds of life insurance policies and annuity contracts,” provides, in relevant part, that, “interest upon the principal sum paid to the beneficiary . . . shall be computed daily at the rate of interest currently paid by the insurer on proceeds left under the interest settlement option, from the date of the death of an . . . annuitant in connection with a death claim on such a . . . contract of annuity . . . to the date of payment and shall be added to and be a part of the total sum paid.” … [T]he word “currently” is ambiguous, as it could refer to the rate in effect on each date on which a daily computation must be made. Conversely, it could refer to the rate in effect on the date of payment.

” Where the language of a statute is susceptible of two constructions, the courts will adopt that which avoids injustice, hardship, constitutional doubts or other objectionable results'”… . Applying this principle here, the calculation of interest under section 3214(c) should reflect the rates applied by the insurer in the normal course of managing its funds held on deposit, rather than arbitrarily determining the entire interest payment based on the happenstance of the interest rate in effect on the date of payment … . …

​

Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied to both parties in this case, as the record presents unresolved issues of fact regarding the historical interest rates used by TFLIC and its predecessor, TLICNY, between 1998 (the year of …. death) and 2012 (the year on which the proceeds of Annuity #8231 were paid). Fleischman v Transamerica Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 05068, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ANNUITIES, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012))/ANNUITIES (INSURANCE LAW, INTEREST, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE LIFE OF THE ANNUITY)/INTEREST (ANNUITIES, INSURANCE LAW, INTEREST ON AN ANNUITY SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE INTEREST RATE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DEATH OF THE ANNUITANT (1998) AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT (2012)))

You might also like
Relationships Among Subtenancy, Prime Tenancy and Landlord Explained
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (SECOND DEPT).
“General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose Liability Under the Labor Law
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE VAN DRIVER AND THE EMPLOYER OF THE VAN DRIVER WHO MADE A LEFT TURN INTO THE MOTORCYCLE’S PATH, THE GRAVES AMENDMENT MAY APPLY TO THE LESSOR OF THE VAN, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY AS SHE WAS NOT A COVERED PERSON UNDER THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION, PREMISED ON DEFENDANT’S AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STANDING EVIDENCE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION... COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE...