ILNews

Insurance presents first-impression issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined today for the first time that post-retirement health insurance premiums paid by a former employer aren't a marital asset subject to a division.

In Anne M. Bingley v. Charles B. Bingley, No. 02A03-0904-CV-187, Anne Bingley appealed the division of assets in the dissolution of her marriage to Charles Bingley. The trial court order didn't include Charles' employer-paid, post-retirement health insurance premiums.

Anne argued the payments fall under subsection 2 of Indiana Code Section 31-9-2-98(b), as a retirement benefit not forfeited upon the termination of employment, and cited several Indiana cases that found pension benefits to be marital assets.

But the Court of Appeals ruled the premiums weren't a marital asset subject to division. The cases Anne cited involved monthly monetary payments made directly to the pension-holding spouse; Charles' benefit wasn't payable to him but was non-elective and couldn't be divided or transferred, wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

The appellate court found Gnerlich v. Gnerlich, 538 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), and Antonacopulos v. Antonacopulos, 753 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), to be instructive in that the underlying principle applied in those cases is that insurance policy coverage as part of an employee's retirement package may be included in the marital estate only when marital assets were used to obtain the benefits. Benefits that are purely supplemental are properly excluded from the marital estate, she wrote.

Judge Terry Crone wrote a concurring in result opinion in which he wondered if the Indiana General Assembly intended to define "retirement benefits" and "vested" in terms of the Internal Revenue Code. As it's currently written, I.C. Section 31-9-2-98(b) doesn't answer the question.

"If the legislature did intend to define 'retirement benefits' and 'vested' in terms of the Internal Revenue Code, then the health insurance premiums at issue would not be considered 'retirement benefits' and therefore would not be considered marital property subject to division," he wrote. "If the opposite is true, then we are left with the case law on which the majority relies as guidance for determining whether the premiums are 'retirement benefits' that are 'vested' under Indiana law."

He wants the legislature to address this perceived ambiguity.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT