Foreign life insurance („STOLI“) generally refers to any act, practice or agreement that, on occasion or before the issuance of a policy, introduces or facilitates the issuance of life insurance in the interest of a person who, at the time of the birth of the policy, has no insurable interest in the life of the insured under the laws of the state concerned.  These include the purchase of life insurance with resources or guarantees from or through a person who, at the time of initiation of the policy, was unable to legally initiate the policy; an agreement or other agreement regarding the transfer of ownership of the policy or benefits from the policy to another person; or a trust or similar arrangement agreement used, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of purchasing one or more policies for the purpose of the intended interest of another person, in a manner contrary to state insurance legislation.  The main feature of a STOLI transaction is that the insurance is acquired exclusively as an investment vehicle and not in favour of the beneficiaries of the policyholder.  STOLI agreements are generally encouraged for consumers between the ages of 65 and 85.  The Price-Dawe decision was (and as explained below) very bad news for the stoli market. The Delaware Supreme Court has been very clear: stoli policy has been abolished from the beginning, and a court will never be able to enforce agreements that do not agree at the outset of the initio, regardless of the intentions of the parties. In addition, as explained below, there are huge blocks of guidelines that are governed by Delaware law and the Price Dawe decision. In the early years of this stoli trial, the parties focused on whether the political transactions in question were unstgoing in violation of the laws of insurable interest of the ruling states and, in this context, the courts had difficulty developing standards for those cases. In one of the earliest STOLI decisions, for example.B. Life Product Clearing LLC v. Angel, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 4233 (U.S.D.C S.D. of NY 2008), the FEDERAL District Court of STOLI set a relatively low bar and stated that insurable interest rate rules were violated whenever the insured intended to assign the policy to issue on the secondary market. This is called the „intent“ standard. The Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada District Court has set a significantly higher level.