Opinion ID: 146258
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exchange of Policies

Text: Kirsh first argues that Alter and Schreck never actually exchanged their whole life insurance policies for term policies.5 He cites Alter’s testimony that she sought to cancel—not exchange—the policy she bought from American General, and that American General never discussed exchanging her policy at any time. Without this exchange, Kirsh argues that his obligation to repay the commissions he made on the sale never arose. Kirsh’s argument on this point lacks merit. In front of the district court, Kirsh acknowledged that, in the Settlement Agreement, American General subtracted from the refund the amount of premiums that Alter and Schreck would have paid had they purchased term insurance from the outset. The Endorsement allowed Alter and Schreck to change their plan “to a term insurance plan as of the original Date of Issue,” and nothing in the Endorsement requires Alter and Schreck to maintain a policy with American General to effect the exchange. (emphasis added). In other words, the Settlement Agreement memorialized a retroactive exchange from whole to term policies, which the Endorsement permitted, if not contemplated. We therefore find that Alter and Schreck exchanged, rather than canceled, their policies.6 5 Kirsh makes a remark that American General could not legally issue term insurance to Alter and Schreck because American General is not licensed to issue policies in New York. This argument is baseless. American General owns U.S. Life Insurance Company in the City of New York. The district court took judicial notice of this fact, and did not err by doing so. 6 We are not persuaded by Kirsh’s argument that the Settlement Agreement only “permitted” Alter and Schreck to exercise the Endorsement, and that there exists no evidence 7 Case: 09-20403 Document: 00511107617 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 No. 09-20403