⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears Adam Margules' challenge to the surrender of his life insurance policy. He borrowed money to pay the premiums and pledged policy rights as security for the loan. In twenty twenty, the loan came due. Wintrust Life Finance requested financial records to consider renewing it. The financing was not renewed, the loan was not repaid, and Wintrust asked Massachusetts Mutual to cash out the policy and pay the lender. Margules seeks restoration of his coverage or damages. The district court ruled for both companies without a trial. A collateral assignment gives a lender rights in the policy as security. Cash surrender value is the amount available on ending a cash-value policy while the insured is alive, not the death benefit. Surrender is also different from lapse for unpaid premiums. MassMutual will argue that this policy allowed reinstatement after a lapse, but not after a full surrender. One dispute concerns New York Banking Law Section five seventy-six, which sets notice requirements for premium-finance cancellations, including advance mailed warning to the insured and insurance agent. Margules' lawyer will contend that emailing his agent did not satisfy that requirement, even though the agent actually received notice. Wintrust will argue that a statutory exception makes the requirement inapplicable and, alternatively, that actual notice was sufficient. The judges will also ask whether they should consider an exception not raised below. Other questions concern Wintrust's rights after a corporate merger, requests for old financial records during the pandemic, and whether any policy value remained to support reinstatement. The companies will defend their contractual authority; Margules will seek another chance to pursue his claims. The panel also asks whether the parties' citizenship was properly established so the federal court had authority to hear the dispute.

Margules v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (No. 25-2241) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 23, 2026.