Preview
261788
Joseph A. Androvich
BRELSFORD, ANDROVICH & WHITE
2001 I Street
SACRAMENTO CA 95811
916-449-1300 916-449-1320
jandrovich@baw-attorneys.com
Claimants Madeline and Sophia King
SACRAMENTO
720 9th Street
720 9th Street
Sacramento, 95814
Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse
King v. Kaiser
Anna Nguyen
X
Madeline King
1456 El Tejon Way, Sacramento, CA 95864
September 1, 2013 10 X
x
Office of the Independent Administrator (Kaiser)
17938
King v. Kaiser
January 26, 2022
Sacramento, California
Philip M. King, M.D. and KAISER entities
Claimant's father, Philip M. King, M.D. had surgery on January 11, 2022. The surgery went well, but on January 26, 2022, Dr.
King expired due to alleged medical malpractice.
Dr. King died of a myocardial infarction due to coronary artery disease. Claimant alleges wrongful death of her father, and loss
of support.
None.
X
Claimant's emotional effects of losing her father will never go away.
King v. Kaiser
x
2,000,000.00
Kaiser global settlement to claimants, (her sister and mother/widow Quynh Le,M.D. 2,000,000.00
x
2,000,000.00
x
x
Quynh Le (Mother/widow) 1,006,577.09
Madeline King (claimant) 162,500.00
Sophia King (sister) 162,500.00
King v. Kaiser
King v. Kaiser
655,851.41
Costs Brelsford Androvich and White 12,571.50
12,571.50
King v. Kaiser
X
X 655,851.41
X [1,181,648.59]
1,837,500.00
162,500.00
2,000,000.00
655,851.41
1,181,648.59
1,837.50.00
162,500.00
King v. Kaiser
X
x
Joseph A. Androvich
261788
BRELSFORD, ANDROVICH & WHITE
2001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95811
916-449-1300 jandrovich@baw-attorneys.com
X
x
x
x
King v. Kaiser
x
X 162,500.00
King v. Kaiser
x
This petition is being filed in conjunction with a petition for claimant Sophia King. Claimants request that both petitions
be heard and/or ruled on simultaneously.
8
March 5, 2024
Attachment 13a
I, JOSEPH A, ANDROVICH, ESQ., do hereby declare:
1. That I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partner of the law offices of Brelsford, Androvich & White
and represent the petitioner QUYNH LE; MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN and MADELINE KING, a minor, by
and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN.
2. On June 1, 2022, my firm was retained to represent QUYNH LE; MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA
NGUYEN and MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN to litigate the case. A fee agreement was executed whereby upon
the receipt of a settlement or award, all reasonable litigation costs incurred for the prosecution of this matter would be reimbursed to the firm. From the remaining net
settlement or award, a contingency attorney fee in the amount of 33% of the recovered. The fee structure offered to the claimants was the MICRA fee structure that was
in place as of January 2023.
3. This was a complicated medical malpractice / wrongful death case that required an extraordinary amount of professional time, skill, and financial
resources to prosecute. There were an extensive amount of medical records that were analyzed and summarized. Three medical experts were retained. I retained two
experts in the fields of internal medicine, as I wanted the perspective of a hospital based internal medicine physician and a community based internal medicine
physician; I retained one expert in the field of cardiology. Before the Demand for Arbitration was made upon Kaiser, I sent all of the medical records to the experts, and
obtained their preliminary opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the case. I advised my client about the issues in the case, and provided a litigation plan.
4. After the initial experts reviews were obtained and the Demand for Arbitration was filed, we received numerous sets of written discovery from the
Kaiser Defendants. We assisted our clients with all stages of the written discovery phase. Next, I noticed the depositions of multiple Kaiser healthcare providers who
played a role in the pertinent medical decision making for Dr. King. This included the depositions of two internal medicine physicians and one neurosurgeon. I had
noticed additional depositions of other Kaiser providers, but the case resolved before completion of those depositions.
5. After the depositions transcripts were received, the transcripts and exhibits were sent to the two retained medical experts for review and comment.
I had numerous discussions with the experts about the implications of the deposition testimony on the theories of liability, causation, and damages. This not only
required additional professional time to be incurred, but additional expert costs as well.
6. In late 2023, the Kaiser Defendants filed a Motion For Summary Judgment on the issues of standard of care and causation. To support their
position, the Kaiser Defendants submitted Declarations from experts qualified in the fields of Internal Medicine and Cardiology. In response, I worked extensively with
our retained experts to prepare Declarations in Opposition to Kaiser’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This required multiple hours of professional time and significant
expense. After multiple draft Declarations were circulated, edited, and finalized, I served the Declarations on the Kaiser Defendants. The Declarations were deemed
sufficient for the Kaiser Defendants to remove their MSJ from the Arbitrator’s calendar.
7. The Kaiser Defendants and I agreed to Mediate this case with local arbitrator Eric Ratinoff. Our Mediation deposits were paid, and briefing
occurred from the Claimant to the Mediator. Before the date of Mediation, the parties engaged in private negotiations that lasted nearly one week. At the conclusion of
the negotiations, the Kaiser Defendants offered a best and final global settlement offer to the Claimants for the amount of $2,000,000. After discussion with my clients,
we agreed to accept the $2,000,000 and the case settled, globally.
continued on next page.
March 5, 2024
Joseph A. Androvich
X X
King v. Kaiser
13a
8. After the case was settled globally, I assisted the Claimants in obtaining annuity quotes. I exchanged many phone calls
and emails with the GAL and the annuity broker, and the decision was made to fund an annuity for the minor claimants Madeline
King and Sophia King.
9. It is impossible for me to determine the time and labor required in pursuing this matter to conclusion. The
nature of our firm is a personal injury firm and we rarely keep track of our time. Our firm has the sufficient experience and
reputation and ability to perform the services that were required to resolve this matter for the agreed upon amount. As set forth in
the Personal Injury fee abetment as contained in Attachment 17a. However, I would estimate that I spent 400-500 hours on this
matter.
10. Costs were incurred in the amount of $12,571.50, globally. This included $10,325 in expert fees, $1,126.50 in
Deposition Court Reporter costs, and $11,020 in filing and other administrative costs. After the total costs of $12,571.50 were
deducted from the $2,000,000 global settlement, this left $1,987,428.50. A 33% fee was applied to the $1,987,428.50, for a total
attorneys fee of $655,851.41. This 33% is the contractually agreed upon fee, and it is consistent with MICRA (and the new
legislation regarding MICRA). After deducting costs and fees in the amount of $668,422.91 from the $2,000,000.00 settlement,
the net remaining settlement proceeds total $1,331,577.09.
11. After much discussion with Claimant Quynh Le and the GAL Anna Nguyen, the decision was made that
claimant Quyhn Le would receive $1,006,577.09, and the remaining $325,000.00 would be split equally between the surviving
children (Madeline King and Sophia King). We determined this to be an equitable apportionment for many reasons. Claimant
Quyhn Le is a physician at Kaiser, and so was her late husband, Dr. King. Due to Dr. King’s death, the combined household
income has dropped by 50%. The $1,006,577.09 apportioned to Quyhn Le will allow her to maintain the home her children are
raised in, and in order to assist with maintaining the financial quality of life her daughters had when their father was alive and
contributing his income to the household. In addition, the interest rates are such that annuities such as the annuities purchased
here have high rates of return. By purchasing the annuity for Madeline in the amount of $162,500, the total payout to Madeline
over the terms of the annuity will be $242,598. By purchasing the annuity for Sophia in the amount of $162,500, the total payout
to Sophia over the terms of the annuity will be $265,191 (higher than Madeline’s payout due to Sophia’s younger age).
Combined, this is the equivalent of a $1,514,366.09 net settlement to the family, globally, on a case that settled for $2,000,000.
Attachment 17a
King v. Kaiser
18b(3)
Please see attached.
1 1
(ATTACHMENT TO PETITON 18b(3) - MC-350 / ATTACHMENT TO PETITION 19b(3) - MC-350EX)
(ATTACHMENT TO ORDER 8b(2) - MC-351)
ATTACHMENT TO PETITION AND/OR ORDER FOR MINOR'S COMPROMISE
FOR:
MADELINE KING
In consideration of the Petition and/or Order for Minor’s Compromise, attached hereto, the Defendant and/or
the Insurer(s) agrees to settle this claim for Madeline King, a minor, by and through their Guardian / Guardian
ad Litem (the “Plaintiff”).
Periodic Payments made payable to Madeline King (the “Payee”) according to the schedule as follows (the
"Periodic Payments"):
Guaranteed Payout
Guaranteed Annual Payments
$60,649.43 paid annually, guaranteed for 4 years.
Commencing 09/01/2031, with the last guaranteed payment 09/01/2034. $ 242,598
The exact cost of the above Periodic Payments is $162,500.00
This amount is disclosed as a condition of the settlement and in no way grants any right, control, or ownership
interest in the Periodic Payments to any Payee, except the right to receive future Periodic Payments as
described above.
The future Periodic Payments outlined above are guaranteed based upon a projected funding date. Any
delay in funding the Periodic Payments may result in a delay of the payment dates or change in payment
amounts. Any rate adjustments may result in minor changes to the Periodic Payments listed above. These
changes shall be recorded in the Settlement Agreement and Release, Qualified Assignment document and
Annuity Contract without the need of obtaining an amended Petition or Court Order.
All sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of physical injuries or physical sickness, within the
meaning of Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Consent to Qualified Assignment i
The Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) may make a "Qualified
Assignment" within the meaning of Section 130(c), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, of the
Defendant(s)’s and/or Insurer(s)’s liability to make the Periodic Payments set forth herein. The Defendant
and/or the Insurer(s) (the "Assignor"), as the payor of the consideration recited herein, shall fund the above
Periodic Payments and assign its obligation to make the Periodic Payments called for above in this Attachment
for Minor’s Compromise to Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlement Company (the "Assignee"). The
Assignee’s obligation for payment of the Periodic Payments shall be no greater than that of Defendant(s) and/or
Insurer(s) (whether by judgment or agreement) immediately preceding the assignment of the Periodic Payments
obligation. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company hereby irrevocably guarantees the payment obligations
of Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlement Company. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company has received
high ratings from A. M. Best, (A+), Standard & Poor’s, (A+), and Moody’s, (A1). (See attached ratings
sheet).
Such assignment shall be accepted by the Plaintiff without right of rejection and shall completely release and
discharge the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) from the Periodic Payments obligation assigned to the Assignee.
The Plaintiff recognizes that the Assignee shall be the sole obligor with respect to the Periodic Payments
obligation, and that all other releases with respect to the Periodic Payments obligation that pertain to the liability
of the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) shall thereupon become final, irrevocable, absolute and non-contingent.
Payee’s Rights to Payments
The Plaintiff acknowledges that the Periodic Payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased
by the Plaintiff or any Payee; nor shall the Plaintiff or any Payee have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or
anticipate the Periodic Payments, or any part thereof, by assignment or otherwise.
No part of the payments called for herein or any assets of the Defendant(s) and/or the Assignee are to be subject
to execution of any legal process for any obligation in any manner. The Payee shall not have the power to sell
or mortgage or encumber the payments, or any part thereof, nor anticipate the same, or any part thereof, by
assignment or otherwise. Any such sale, mortgage, encumbrance, or anticipation by assignment or otherwise
shall be void unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation, or other transfer or encumbrance has been
approved in advance in a “qualified order” as outlined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended and approved by a court of competent jurisdiction and otherwise complies with applicable
state law, including without limitation any and all applicable state structured settlement protection statutes. In
the event that the Payee attempts to seek such a “qualified order,” they do hereby agree and consent to provide
full and timely legal notice of any such Motion or Petition for such a “qualified order” to Plaintiff’s counsel and
Guardian ad Litem, if appointed. No direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be
effective and no structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer shall be required to make any payment directly
or indirectly to any transferee of structured settlement payment rights unless the transfer has been approved in
advance in a final court order based on express findings by the court that:
(1) the transfer is in the best interest of the Payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the Payee's
dependents;
(2) the Payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding
the transfer and has either received the advice or knowingly waived the advice in writing; and
(3) the transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or an order of any court or other governmental
authority.
Right to Fund an Annuity
The Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s), itself, or through its Assignee, reserves the right to fund the liability to
make the Periodic Payments by funding a "qualified funding asset", within the meaning of Section 130(d) of the
Code, in the form of an annuity policy from United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (Annuity Issuer). The
Assignee shall be the sole owner of the annuity policy and shall have all rights of ownership. The Assignee
may have United of Omaha Life Insurance Company mail payments directly to the Payee. The Plaintiff or the
Payee, upon reaching the age of majority, shall be responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the current
mailing address and mortality information for the Payee with the Assignee.
Payee’s Beneficiary
Any payments to be made after the death of the Payee pursuant to the terms of this Attachment for Minor’s
Compromise shall be made to such person or entity as shall be designated in writing by the Payee, upon
reaching the age of majority, to the Assignee. If no person or entity is so designated by the Payee, or if the
person designated is not living at the time of the Payee’s death, such payments shall be made to the estate of the
Payee. No such designation, nor any revocation thereof, shall be effective unless it is in writing and delivered
to the Assignee. The designation must be in a form acceptable to the Assignee before such payments are made.
Discharge of Obligation
The obligation of the Assignee to make each Periodic Payment shall be discharged upon the mailing of a valid
check to the designated address or upon electronic transfer to the designated bank account in the amount of such
payment to the Payee named in this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise. Upon notice from the Payee that a
payment was not received, the Assignee will initiate reasonable stop payment action and, upon confirmation
that the funds were not negotiated or deposited, the Assignee will process a replacement payment.
i
This process involves the Defendant and/or the Insurer(s) issuing a check payable to Mutual of Omaha
Structured Settlement Company in the amount specified in this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise and
signing a Qualified Assignment and Release document to transfer their obligation for these payments to the
Assignee. The check must be sent to Ringler at 10400 Overland Road, PMB 105; Boise, ID 83709.
List of Company Ratings
Company: United of Omaha Life Ins Co
Domicile: NE
Established: 1926
A.M. Best Company Rating A+ (2)
Superior. Assigned to companies that have, in our opinion, a superior ability to meet their ongoing obligations to
policyholders.
Standard & Poor's Financial Strength Rating A+ (5)
An insurer rated 'A' has STRONG financial security characteristics, but is somewhat more likely to be affected by
adverse business conditions than are insurers with higher ratings .
Moody's Financial Strength Rating A1 (5)
Insurance companies rated A offer good financial security. However, elements may be present which suggest a
susceptibility to impairment sometime in the future.
Weiss Safety Rating B (5)
Good. The company offers good financial security and has the resources to deal with a variety of adverse economic
conditions. It comfortably exceeds the minimum levels for all of our rating criteria, and is likely to remain healthy for
the near future. However, in the event of a severe recession or major financial crisis, we feel that this assessment
should be reviewed to make sure that the firm is still maintaining adequate financial strength.
Comdex Ranking - VitalSigns Composite Index 90
The Comdex gives the average percentile ranking of this company in relation to all other companies that have been
rated by the rating services. The Comdex Ranking is the percentage of companies that are rated lower than this
company.
A Best's Financial Strength Rating opinion addresses the relative ability of an insurer to meet its ongoing insurance obligations. It is not a warranty of a
company's financial strength and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders. View our Important Notice: Best's Credit Ratings for a disclaimer notice
and complete details at http://www.ambest.com/ratings/notice.
Watch list identifiers follow the ratings if the company is on the rating service's watch list. The identifier indicates a possible upgrade (w+), downgrade (w-),
or unknown change (w).
The ratings on this report are current as of June 17, 2019. These ratings have been selected by your life insurance advisor from among the ratings
assigned to this insurer.
Presented by: J Douglas Merritt, California, Ringler Associates, Inc., 540 Lennon Lane, 540 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 8003521912
Email: jmerritt@ringlerassociates.com
Page 1 of 1 Powered by VitalSales Suite, a product of EbixExchange.
Preview
261788 Joseph A. Androvich BRELSFORD, ANDROVICH & WHITE 2001 I Street SACRAMENTO CA 95811 916-449-1300 916-449-1320 jandrovich@baw-attorneys.com Claimants Madeline and Sophia King SACRAMENTO 720 9th Street 720 9th Street Sacramento, 95814 Gordon D. Schaber Sacramento County Courthouse King v. Kaiser Anna Nguyen X Madeline King 1456 El Tejon Way, Sacramento, CA 95864 September 1, 2013 10 X x Office of the Independent Administrator (Kaiser) 17938 King v. Kaiser January 26, 2022 Sacramento, California Philip M. King, M.D. and KAISER entities Claimant's father, Philip M. King, M.D. had surgery on January 11, 2022. The surgery went well, but on January 26, 2022, Dr. King expired due to alleged medical malpractice. Dr. King died of a myocardial infarction due to coronary artery disease. Claimant alleges wrongful death of her father, and loss of support. None. X Claimant's emotional effects of losing her father will never go away. King v. Kaiser x 2,000,000.00 Kaiser global settlement to claimants, (her sister and mother/widow Quynh Le,M.D. 2,000,000.00 x 2,000,000.00 x x Quynh Le (Mother/widow) 1,006,577.09 Madeline King (claimant) 162,500.00 Sophia King (sister) 162,500.00 King v. Kaiser King v. Kaiser 655,851.41 Costs Brelsford Androvich and White 12,571.50 12,571.50 King v. Kaiser X X 655,851.41 X [1,181,648.59] 1,837,500.00 162,500.00 2,000,000.00 655,851.41 1,181,648.59 1,837.50.00 162,500.00 King v. Kaiser X x Joseph A. Androvich 261788 BRELSFORD, ANDROVICH & WHITE 2001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 916-449-1300 jandrovich@baw-attorneys.com X x x x King v. Kaiser x X 162,500.00 King v. Kaiser x This petition is being filed in conjunction with a petition for claimant Sophia King. Claimants request that both petitions be heard and/or ruled on simultaneously. 8 March 5, 2024 Attachment 13a I, JOSEPH A, ANDROVICH, ESQ., do hereby declare: 1. That I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partner of the law offices of Brelsford, Androvich & White and represent the petitioner QUYNH LE; MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN and MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN. 2. On June 1, 2022, my firm was retained to represent QUYNH LE; MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN and MADELINE KING, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ANNA NGUYEN to litigate the case. A fee agreement was executed whereby upon the receipt of a settlement or award, all reasonable litigation costs incurred for the prosecution of this matter would be reimbursed to the firm. From the remaining net settlement or award, a contingency attorney fee in the amount of 33% of the recovered. The fee structure offered to the claimants was the MICRA fee structure that was in place as of January 2023. 3. This was a complicated medical malpractice / wrongful death case that required an extraordinary amount of professional time, skill, and financial resources to prosecute. There were an extensive amount of medical records that were analyzed and summarized. Three medical experts were retained. I retained two experts in the fields of internal medicine, as I wanted the perspective of a hospital based internal medicine physician and a community based internal medicine physician; I retained one expert in the field of cardiology. Before the Demand for Arbitration was made upon Kaiser, I sent all of the medical records to the experts, and obtained their preliminary opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the case. I advised my client about the issues in the case, and provided a litigation plan. 4. After the initial experts reviews were obtained and the Demand for Arbitration was filed, we received numerous sets of written discovery from the Kaiser Defendants. We assisted our clients with all stages of the written discovery phase. Next, I noticed the depositions of multiple Kaiser healthcare providers who played a role in the pertinent medical decision making for Dr. King. This included the depositions of two internal medicine physicians and one neurosurgeon. I had noticed additional depositions of other Kaiser providers, but the case resolved before completion of those depositions. 5. After the depositions transcripts were received, the transcripts and exhibits were sent to the two retained medical experts for review and comment. I had numerous discussions with the experts about the implications of the deposition testimony on the theories of liability, causation, and damages. This not only required additional professional time to be incurred, but additional expert costs as well. 6. In late 2023, the Kaiser Defendants filed a Motion For Summary Judgment on the issues of standard of care and causation. To support their position, the Kaiser Defendants submitted Declarations from experts qualified in the fields of Internal Medicine and Cardiology. In response, I worked extensively with our retained experts to prepare Declarations in Opposition to Kaiser’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This required multiple hours of professional time and significant expense. After multiple draft Declarations were circulated, edited, and finalized, I served the Declarations on the Kaiser Defendants. The Declarations were deemed sufficient for the Kaiser Defendants to remove their MSJ from the Arbitrator’s calendar. 7. The Kaiser Defendants and I agreed to Mediate this case with local arbitrator Eric Ratinoff. Our Mediation deposits were paid, and briefing occurred from the Claimant to the Mediator. Before the date of Mediation, the parties engaged in private negotiations that lasted nearly one week. At the conclusion of the negotiations, the Kaiser Defendants offered a best and final global settlement offer to the Claimants for the amount of $2,000,000. After discussion with my clients, we agreed to accept the $2,000,000 and the case settled, globally. continued on next page. March 5, 2024 Joseph A. Androvich X X King v. Kaiser 13a 8. After the case was settled globally, I assisted the Claimants in obtaining annuity quotes. I exchanged many phone calls and emails with the GAL and the annuity broker, and the decision was made to fund an annuity for the minor claimants Madeline King and Sophia King. 9. It is impossible for me to determine the time and labor required in pursuing this matter to conclusion. The nature of our firm is a personal injury firm and we rarely keep track of our time. Our firm has the sufficient experience and reputation and ability to perform the services that were required to resolve this matter for the agreed upon amount. As set forth in the Personal Injury fee abetment as contained in Attachment 17a. However, I would estimate that I spent 400-500 hours on this matter. 10. Costs were incurred in the amount of $12,571.50, globally. This included $10,325 in expert fees, $1,126.50 in Deposition Court Reporter costs, and $11,020 in filing and other administrative costs. After the total costs of $12,571.50 were deducted from the $2,000,000 global settlement, this left $1,987,428.50. A 33% fee was applied to the $1,987,428.50, for a total attorneys fee of $655,851.41. This 33% is the contractually agreed upon fee, and it is consistent with MICRA (and the new legislation regarding MICRA). After deducting costs and fees in the amount of $668,422.91 from the $2,000,000.00 settlement, the net remaining settlement proceeds total $1,331,577.09. 11. After much discussion with Claimant Quynh Le and the GAL Anna Nguyen, the decision was made that claimant Quyhn Le would receive $1,006,577.09, and the remaining $325,000.00 would be split equally between the surviving children (Madeline King and Sophia King). We determined this to be an equitable apportionment for many reasons. Claimant Quyhn Le is a physician at Kaiser, and so was her late husband, Dr. King. Due to Dr. King’s death, the combined household income has dropped by 50%. The $1,006,577.09 apportioned to Quyhn Le will allow her to maintain the home her children are raised in, and in order to assist with maintaining the financial quality of life her daughters had when their father was alive and contributing his income to the household. In addition, the interest rates are such that annuities such as the annuities purchased here have high rates of return. By purchasing the annuity for Madeline in the amount of $162,500, the total payout to Madeline over the terms of the annuity will be $242,598. By purchasing the annuity for Sophia in the amount of $162,500, the total payout to Sophia over the terms of the annuity will be $265,191 (higher than Madeline’s payout due to Sophia’s younger age). Combined, this is the equivalent of a $1,514,366.09 net settlement to the family, globally, on a case that settled for $2,000,000. Attachment 17a King v. Kaiser 18b(3) Please see attached. 1 1 (ATTACHMENT TO PETITON 18b(3) - MC-350 / ATTACHMENT TO PETITION 19b(3) - MC-350EX) (ATTACHMENT TO ORDER 8b(2) - MC-351) ATTACHMENT TO PETITION AND/OR ORDER FOR MINOR'S COMPROMISE FOR: MADELINE KING In consideration of the Petition and/or Order for Minor’s Compromise, attached hereto, the Defendant and/or the Insurer(s) agrees to settle this claim for Madeline King, a minor, by and through their Guardian / Guardian ad Litem (the “Plaintiff”). Periodic Payments made payable to Madeline King (the “Payee”) according to the schedule as follows (the "Periodic Payments"): Guaranteed Payout Guaranteed Annual Payments $60,649.43 paid annually, guaranteed for 4 years. Commencing 09/01/2031, with the last guaranteed payment 09/01/2034. $ 242,598 The exact cost of the above Periodic Payments is $162,500.00 This amount is disclosed as a condition of the settlement and in no way grants any right, control, or ownership interest in the Periodic Payments to any Payee, except the right to receive future Periodic Payments as described above. The future Periodic Payments outlined above are guaranteed based upon a projected funding date. Any delay in funding the Periodic Payments may result in a delay of the payment dates or change in payment amounts. Any rate adjustments may result in minor changes to the Periodic Payments listed above. These changes shall be recorded in the Settlement Agreement and Release, Qualified Assignment document and Annuity Contract without the need of obtaining an amended Petition or Court Order. All sums set forth herein constitute damages on account of physical injuries or physical sickness, within the meaning of Section 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Consent to Qualified Assignment i The Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) may make a "Qualified Assignment" within the meaning of Section 130(c), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, of the Defendant(s)’s and/or Insurer(s)’s liability to make the Periodic Payments set forth herein. The Defendant and/or the Insurer(s) (the "Assignor"), as the payor of the consideration recited herein, shall fund the above Periodic Payments and assign its obligation to make the Periodic Payments called for above in this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise to Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlement Company (the "Assignee"). The Assignee’s obligation for payment of the Periodic Payments shall be no greater than that of Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) (whether by judgment or agreement) immediately preceding the assignment of the Periodic Payments obligation. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company hereby irrevocably guarantees the payment obligations of Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlement Company. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company has received high ratings from A. M. Best, (A+), Standard & Poor’s, (A+), and Moody’s, (A1). (See attached ratings sheet). Such assignment shall be accepted by the Plaintiff without right of rejection and shall completely release and discharge the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) from the Periodic Payments obligation assigned to the Assignee. The Plaintiff recognizes that the Assignee shall be the sole obligor with respect to the Periodic Payments obligation, and that all other releases with respect to the Periodic Payments obligation that pertain to the liability of the Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s) shall thereupon become final, irrevocable, absolute and non-contingent. Payee’s Rights to Payments The Plaintiff acknowledges that the Periodic Payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by the Plaintiff or any Payee; nor shall the Plaintiff or any Payee have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate the Periodic Payments, or any part thereof, by assignment or otherwise. No part of the payments called for herein or any assets of the Defendant(s) and/or the Assignee are to be subject to execution of any legal process for any obligation in any manner. The Payee shall not have the power to sell or mortgage or encumber the payments, or any part thereof, nor anticipate the same, or any part thereof, by assignment or otherwise. Any such sale, mortgage, encumbrance, or anticipation by assignment or otherwise shall be void unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation, or other transfer or encumbrance has been approved in advance in a “qualified order” as outlined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and approved by a court of competent jurisdiction and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any and all applicable state structured settlement protection statutes. In the event that the Payee attempts to seek such a “qualified order,” they do hereby agree and consent to provide full and timely legal notice of any such Motion or Petition for such a “qualified order” to Plaintiff’s counsel and Guardian ad Litem, if appointed. No direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be effective and no structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer shall be required to make any payment directly or indirectly to any transferee of structured settlement payment rights unless the transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based on express findings by the court that: (1) the transfer is in the best interest of the Payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the Payee's dependents; (2) the Payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received the advice or knowingly waived the advice in writing; and (3) the transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or an order of any court or other governmental authority. Right to Fund an Annuity The Defendant(s) and/or Insurer(s), itself, or through its Assignee, reserves the right to fund the liability to make the Periodic Payments by funding a "qualified funding asset", within the meaning of Section 130(d) of the Code, in the form of an annuity policy from United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (Annuity Issuer). The Assignee shall be the sole owner of the annuity policy and shall have all rights of ownership. The Assignee may have United of Omaha Life Insurance Company mail payments directly to the Payee. The Plaintiff or the Payee, upon reaching the age of majority, shall be responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the current mailing address and mortality information for the Payee with the Assignee. Payee’s Beneficiary Any payments to be made after the death of the Payee pursuant to the terms of this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise shall be made to such person or entity as shall be designated in writing by the Payee, upon reaching the age of majority, to the Assignee. If no person or entity is so designated by the Payee, or if the person designated is not living at the time of the Payee’s death, such payments shall be made to the estate of the Payee. No such designation, nor any revocation thereof, shall be effective unless it is in writing and delivered to the Assignee. The designation must be in a form acceptable to the Assignee before such payments are made. Discharge of Obligation The obligation of the Assignee to make each Periodic Payment shall be discharged upon the mailing of a valid check to the designated address or upon electronic transfer to the designated bank account in the amount of such payment to the Payee named in this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise. Upon notice from the Payee that a payment was not received, the Assignee will initiate reasonable stop payment action and, upon confirmation that the funds were not negotiated or deposited, the Assignee will process a replacement payment. i This process involves the Defendant and/or the Insurer(s) issuing a check payable to Mutual of Omaha Structured Settlement Company in the amount specified in this Attachment for Minor’s Compromise and signing a Qualified Assignment and Release document to transfer their obligation for these payments to the Assignee. The check must be sent to Ringler at 10400 Overland Road, PMB 105; Boise, ID 83709. List of Company Ratings Company: United of Omaha Life Ins Co Domicile: NE Established: 1926 A.M. Best Company Rating A+ (2) Superior. Assigned to companies that have, in our opinion, a superior ability to meet their ongoing obligations to policyholders. Standard & Poor's Financial Strength Rating A+ (5) An insurer rated 'A' has STRONG financial security characteristics, but is somewhat more likely to be affected by adverse business conditions than are insurers with higher ratings . Moody's Financial Strength Rating A1 (5) Insurance companies rated A offer good financial security. However, elements may be present which suggest a susceptibility to impairment sometime in the future. Weiss Safety Rating B (5) Good. The company offers good financial security and has the resources to deal with a variety of adverse economic conditions. It comfortably exceeds the minimum levels for all of our rating criteria, and is likely to remain healthy for the near future. However, in the event of a severe recession or major financial crisis, we feel that this assessment should be reviewed to make sure that the firm is still maintaining adequate financial strength. Comdex Ranking - VitalSigns Composite Index 90 The Comdex gives the average percentile ranking of this company in relation to all other companies that have been rated by the rating services. The Comdex Ranking is the percentage of companies that are rated lower than this company. A Best's Financial Strength Rating opinion addresses the relative ability of an insurer to meet its ongoing insurance obligations. It is not a warranty of a company's financial strength and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders. View our Important Notice: Best's Credit Ratings for a disclaimer notice and complete details at http://www.ambest.com/ratings/notice. Watch list identifiers follow the ratings if the company is on the rating service's watch list. The identifier indicates a possible upgrade (w+), downgrade (w-), or unknown change (w). The ratings on this report are current as of June 17, 2019. These ratings have been selected by your life insurance advisor from among the ratings assigned to this insurer. Presented by: J Douglas Merritt, California, Ringler Associates, Inc., 540 Lennon Lane, 540 Lennon Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 8003521912 Email: jmerritt@ringlerassociates.com Page 1 of 1 Powered by VitalSales Suite, a product of EbixExchange.