Vested employer-provided health-insurance premiums are an asset

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held that employer-provided health-insurance benefits constitute an asset once they have vested in a party to the marriage, and addressed for the first time the possible methods of valuing these benefits in marriage dissolution. This conclusion led one justice to dissent because it disrupts existing dissolution property division law.

Anne Bingley wanted the premiums paid by Charles Bingley’s former employer to a health-insurance company as part of his pension plan to be considered property subject to division in their divorce. The trial court held the benefits didn’t constitute a marital asset, which the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

Four of the justices reversed, holding that employer-provided health-insurance benefits do constitute an asset once they have vested in a party to the marriage. They found Charles’ health-insurance benefits constitute an intangible asset, and whether a right to a present or future benefit constitutes an asset that should be included in marital property depends mainly on whether it has vested at the time of the dissolution. Navistar, from which he retired, was paying his premiums at the time the marriage ended and he had the present right to enjoy the benefits.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard noted the illiquidity of his benefits is relevant to the value a court may assign to an asset but not to whether benefits constitute an asset in the first place.

In Anne M. Bingley v. Charles B. Bingley, No. 02S03-1002-CV-122, the justices described three possible methods for valuing these health-insurance benefits, but noted other methods may be more appropriate in other circumstances.

The justices were unable to find any court opinions in which two of the methods were used: a trial court valuing health-insurance benefits by considering the cost of obtaining comparable alternative benefits, or by considering the cost of providing medical services covered by health insurance.

The final method – valuing the benefits by considering the premium subsidy from the employer, has been assumed to be the appropriate method by some academics and practitioners, noted the chief justice.

Then the question arises as to how to divide the assets between the parties. There is a rebuttable presumption that an equal division is just and reasonable but a party may rebut that presumption.

The majority remanded for the valuation of the benefits and reconsideration of the division of assets.

Justice Brent Dickson dissented because he believed the majority opinion “expands the division of marital property contrary to statute, intrudes upon the legislature’s public policy prerogatives, and significantly and harmfully disrupts Indiana marriage dissolution law and practice.”

“One extremely troubling application of today’s ruling is its impact in dissolution cases involving Hoosiers with retirement medical benefits from their United States military service,” he wrote. Usually, a non-military spouse will almost always lose this benefit when divorcing, but under today’s holding, the military retiree’s health benefits would be considered divisible marital property and would warrant a sizeable valuation because of the potentially lengthy time the military retiree would be eligible for the lifetime benefit.

This would likely preclude a divorcing military retiree from retaining any other marital property and require post-dissolution periodic property settlement payments made to the former spouse, something Justice Dickson doubts the legislature intended.

“Today’s holding also introduces other substantial challenges to the valuation and equitable distribution of marital property as parties and courts attempt to apply this new standard to the wide variety of non-pension, assured future benefit packages that are becoming more commonplace with many employers. For example, Hewlett-Packard (HP) provides discounts to its retirees, allowing them to purchase HP products ranging from laptops to printer ink cartridges at a reduced price,” he wrote. “Assigning a present value to such vested benefits will be a formidable if not impossible task.”


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.