[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12135

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:10-cv-80804-JIC

PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee,

versus

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

as Securities Intermediary, 

 Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Appellant.

________________________

No. 13-15859

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-24441-FAM

PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff/Appellant,

versus

U.S. BANK, N.A., 

as Securities Intermediary,

Case: 13-12135 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

 Defendant/Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 25, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and DUBOSE∗

, District 

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals require us to determine the validity of two 

individuals’ Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (“STOLI”) policies that the issuing 

insurance company sought to have invalidated several years after their issuance. 

Arguing that the policies were invalid, the insurance company relied on a Florida 

statute that requires a person who procures life insurance to have an insurable 

interest in the life of the insured at the inception of the policy.1

 The insurance 

company contends that no such interest is present when a STOLI policy is 

purchased and accordingly such policies should be considered void ab initio. The

owners of the policies relied on a second Florida statute that requires all insurance 

 

∗ Honorable Kristi K. DuBose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Alabama, sitting by designation.

1

 Fla. Stat. § 627.404.

Case: 13-12135 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

policies to include a clause providing that the policy is incontestable after it has 

been “in force” for two years.2

 The policies at issue in this consolidated appeal 

contained such a clause, and the insurance company clearly failed to contest the 

policies within that two-year window. 

Thus, the question before this Court was whether an insurance company can 

contest a STOLI policy that has been in force for more than two years. Given the 

absence of any controlling Florida precedent and the inconsistent answers provided 

by district courts within our circuit, we certified the following questions to the 

Supreme Court of Florida:

1. Can a party challenge an insurance policy as being void ab initio

for lack of the insurable interest required by Fla. Stat. § 627.404 if 

that challenge is made after expiration of the two-year 

contestability period mandated by Fla. Stat. § 627.455?

2. Assuming that a party can do so, does Fla. Stat. § 627.404 require 

that an individual with the required insurable interest also procure 

the insurance policy in good faith? 

See Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 780 F.3d 1327, 1336 (11th Cir. 

2015).

We indicated that the phrasing of the above questions should not restrict the 

Florida Supreme Court’s consideration of the issues presented in these appeals. In 

providing an answer, the Florida Supreme Court determined that with a STOLI 

 

2

 Fla. Stat. § 627.455.

Case: 13-12135 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

policy like the two policies at issue in this consolidated appeal, an insurable 

interest exists in the life of the insured at the inception of the policy, as required by 

Florida Statute § 627.404. That being so, the Florida Supreme Court indicated that 

these policies became incontestable within two years from their issuance, as 

provided in Florida Statute § 627.455. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Pruco Life Ins. 

Co., 200 So.3d 1202, 1206 (2016). The court stated:

Because STOLI policies like the Berger and Guild policies at issue 

have the insurable interest required by section 627.404(1) at their 

inception, they become incontestable two years after their issuance 

under the plain language of section 627.455. Accordingly, we 

rephrase the questions certified by the Eleventh Circuit into the 

following question: 

Can a party challenge the validity of a life insurance 

policy after the two-year contestability period established 

by section 627.455 because of its creation through a 

STOLI scheme?

We answer this rephrased question in the negative and return this case 

to the Eleventh Circuit.

Id. at 1206–07.

We thank the Florida Supreme Court for its guidance. In light of its 

response, we AFFIRM the entry of judgment for U.S. Bank as to the Guild policy, 

Appeal No. 13-15859, District Court No. 1:12-cv-24441-FAM. We REVERSE 

the entry of judgment for Pruco Life Insurance Company as to the Berger policy, 

Case: 13-12135 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Appeal No. 13-12135, District Court No. 9:10-cv-80804-JIC, and remand for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case: 13-12135 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 5 of 5