## Facts

- Marco Rumbin settled a personal-injury claim with Utica Mutual Insurance Company through a structured settlement providing an initial lump sum and periodic payments over fifteen years.
- The periodic payments were funded by an annuity issued by Safeco Life Insurance Company.
- The annuity included an anti-assignment provision stating that no payment under the annuity could be assigned by Rumbin.
- After becoming unemployed and facing foreclosure, Rumbin contracted with J.G. Wentworth to transfer his remaining structured-settlement payment rights for a lump sum.
- Rumbin sought a declaratory judgment under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225f for court approval of the transfer; Utica Mutual defaulted, Wentworth intervened, and Safeco opposed.
- The trial court approved the transfer, concluding § 52-225f invalidated the anti-assignment clause; Safeco appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-225f invalidates anti-assignment provisions in structured settlement agreements and related annuities, permitting court-approved transfers despite such clauses.
2. If § 52-225f does not invalidate anti-assignment provisions, whether Safeco’s clause made Rumbin’s assignment ineffective (void) or instead merely created a breach giving Safeco a damages remedy.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court held that § 52-225f does not invalidate anti-assignment provisions because it lacks a clear expression of legislative intent to alter the common law.
- The court held the annuity’s anti-assignment language did not eliminate Rumbin’s power to assign because it did not state assignments were “void” or otherwise ineffective.
- The assignment to Wentworth was effective, but Safeco retained a potential claim against Rumbin for damages for breaching the non-assignment covenant.
- The judgment approving the transfer was affirmed, although the Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s statutory rationale.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are construed not to change the common law absent a clear legislative statement; a procedural approval statute does not, by itself, abrogate common-law enforcement of anti-assignment clauses.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 322 (as adopted), a contractual term prohibiting assignment typically restricts the right to assign and supports a breach-of-contract remedy.
- An anti-assignment clause prevents an assignment from being effective only when the contract clearly limits the power to assign (for example, by stating an attempted assignment is void or invalid).

## Conclusion

Connecticut’s court-approval procedure for transfers of structured-settlement payment rights does not automatically override anti-assignment clauses; and unless the clause clearly voids assignments or removes the payee’s power to assign, the transfer remains effective while exposing the assignor to possible contract damages.


Rumbin v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 259, 757 A.2d 526 (Conn. 2000)