Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Rare 50-B Decision
The First Department today held that the discount rate (unspecified in the decision) adopted by the trial court in structuring the judgment was adequately supported by plaintiff's expert's affidavit and that the court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the purchase of an annuity contract to secure periodic payment of future damages from an insurance carrier with an A+ rating. Malloy v. Stellar Management
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Did the court require an A+ company at a hearing just prior to purchase of the annuity contract OR did the court approve such language in the judgment? The big difference is that the former presumes evidence that such a company with an A+ rating exists; if it's in the judgment and an Appeal is taken or some time passes, it is possible that there is no company with such a rating and therefore the defendants can not satisfy the judgment with an annuity and are forced to pay the judgment in lump sum without the 50-B benefits. This should not be allowed.
ReplyDelete