STOLI Policy Void for Lack of Insurable Interest

Expert May Not Testify About STOLI for Lack of Experience
Post 5227

In Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 23-236-GBW), Judge: Gregory B. Williams (November 7, 2025) Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. ("Ameritas") sought to void a $3 million life insurance policy on the life of Marvin Flaks (the "Policy") as a stranger-originated life insurance ("STOLI") policy lacking an insurable interest under Delaware law.
Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB ("Wilmington Savings"), as securities intermediary and counterclaim-plaintiff, opposed and sought to enforce the Policy.
Motion at Issue:

Wilmington Savings' Daubert moved the court to exclude testimony of Ameritas' expert, Michael L. Vild, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The motion targets four categories of Vild's opinions from his expert reports (served June–August 2025): (1) choice-of-law analysis; (2) STOLI and insurable interest; (3) reasonableness of Ameritas' investigation; and (4) life insurance investor practices.

Factual Background
STOLI Context:

STOLI involves speculators procuring life insurance policies on strangers' lives for resale of death benefits, circumventing the "insurable interest" requirement (a policyholder must have a legitimate economic or familial stake in the insured's continued life to prevent wagering on death.

Delaware's seminal case, PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Price Dawe 2006 Ins. Tr. (28 A.3d 1059 (Del. 2011)), declared STOLI policies void ab initio as against public policy.

The Policy:

Ameritas alleges it was procured via STOLI scheme and lacks insurable interest.

Expert (Vild's Qualifications):
Employment:

Partner at Cross & Simon, LLC (2019–present; corporate litigation, no STOLI experience); Director, Delaware DOJ Fraud Division (2017–2019; no shown STOLI work); casino counsel (2008–2017; unrelated); Deputy Insurance Commissioner, Delaware DOI (2005–2008; oversaw regulation, attended NAIC meetings where STOLI/viatical settlements discussed, involved in regulatory discussions but no enacted STOLI regs or direct enforcement); prior law firm roles (1991–2004; no shown STOLI work).  J.D. (Notre Dame, 1991); B.Mus. (Ohio State, 1988). Board roles in captive insurance/reinsurance; bar memberships; personal activities (e.g., music, horse racing). Limited recall of direct STOLI work; no litigation or advisory on life insurance/STOLI; captive insurance unrelated to insurable interest.

Legal Standard

Trial courts gatekeep expert testimony, requiring proponent to show (by preponderance) it is:

(a) helpful to trier of fact;

(b) based on sufficient facts/data;

(c) product of reliable methods; and

(d) reliably applied to case facts.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The court granted the motion in part (excludes on issues 3–4; partial exclusions on 1–2) and denies in part, emphasizing Vild's regulatory experience qualifies him for generalized insurance testimony but not ultimate legal conclusions, claims handling, or investor-specific practices.

Conclusion

The court granted preserved Vild's testimony on general Delaware insurance regulatory interests and STOLI principles (but not case-specific applications) while excluding it on investigation reasonableness and investor practices. Therefore, the ruling narrows Ameritas' expert evidence ahead of trial on the Policy's validity, underscoring Daubert's gatekeeping for topic-specific expertise in insurance disputes.

ZALMA OPINION

STOLI policies are invalid and void from inception in Delaware because they violate the requirement of every life insurance policy that the beneficiary has an insurable interest in the life insured. Rather than being insurance STOLI policies are a gamble on the life of the insured making a profit if the insured dies quickly after the policy was issued. The Insurer retained as an expert a person who knew insurance but had no knowledge of STOLI and wanted to testify about ultimate issues that were the sole province of the court. Applying the gate keeping function the court limited Vild's testimony to generalized insurance practice.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.