Duford Insurance Group vs. Digital BGA for Final Expense Telesales

[jdeasy]

There are agents that uplines don't want. There are uplines that agents don't want.

But agents don't find out about these restrictions on leaving until they want to leave.

My first IMO was NAA. I knew nothing about needing to be released until I wanted to leave. Then was held to contract provisions that I never signed.

Of course you can beat that with legal action but it will take longer than just sitting out.

They all know that. So they continue.

I had no debt. Nor was that their excuse.

I've only had 2 IMO's for FE. When I left EFES for FEX it was very simple. I asked for releases and they said ok

I didn't have any debt there either and it never came up. I don't know what the paperwork entailed between EFES and FEX. But if there was a problem I wasn't informed of one.

I was obligated to buy my remaining leads at EFES. So I did.


Seems to be more to this story.

As for that contract language being "standard", it might be?

But I've never seen it or signed it.

 

[tikibarrister]

I invite you to think carefully about what you say about me from here out, JRoot. Slander is illegal. Doxxing for the sake of intimidation or harassment is actually a crime. Your pockets are deeper than mine. I'll be in touch with the administrators of this forum. You want Karen. You got Karen

Anyway. This was fun. I have to get back to work.

I guess @CLTX is feeling foolish now.

 

[Todd King]

Non competes hold up in court all day long. Depends on how they're worded.

The older, more restrictive ones are the ones that get thrown out. The new ones that simply say that you can't call on or write the clients you wrote with whoever for one year, those hold up all day long. I've used them and still do in my other businesses. (Non insurance)

As far as debt, I don't know any FMO that's willing to assume an agent's debt from a previous FMO.

If it's in a right to work state it's no more than just a piece of paper. Not enforceable at all.

 

[jdeasy]

If it's in a right to work state it's no more than just a piece of paper. Not enforceable at all.

Right to work legislation has nothing to do with independent contractors. Insurance agents are independent contractors.

 

[WinoBlues]

Right to work legislation has nothing to do with independent contractors. Insurance agents are independent contractors.

It appears she signed a non complete as an employee agent. Per Jeff. She won't say.

 

[Todd King]

Right to work legislation has nothing to do with independent contractors. Insurance agents are independent contractors.

She was an employee, but nonetheless, still most likely not enforceable.

 

[Todd King]

Still waiting for all of your non-competes with your personal information. Let's not be "cowards". This is pretty "standard" -no? Anyway. This was fun. I have to get back to work. Take your final digs like the adults that you are. I am out.

Are you done being a Karen too? Did you get a release and did you go somewhere else? So what is exactly the problem....other than you just want to bitch about something?

 

[jdeasy]

She was an employee, but nonetheless, still most likely not enforceable.

I agree. But it still has nothing to do with right to work. Right to work is a union busting arm of Taft Hartly.

 

[CLTX]

I'm not done-I can only check in so much because I work. The problem as I layed out several times Todd King is that JRoot lied about me misinterpreting the release form claiming that he didn't put it on the IMOs to be responsible for chargebacks and then saying that he does that but it is standard. Then he got angry and doxed me which is highly illegal but here is the funny thing. All of you -seemingly-have asserted that I should not have the ability to put in my two cents annonymously and it has been said that I am a coward and these forms are standard. Still, when I invited all of you to give me your full names and show examples of your own forms that I can see thus far-I will have to go back to double check but..-not one of you, that I am aware has. Why is that? 1) Because you are being nasty and don't want to attach your name to your ugly comments and there should be a moderator on here to close out this thread or curb that. 2) Some of you most likely have an association with JRoot of one kind or another-you network, are part of an upline/downline, on his payroll and a couple of these profiles might actually be him and you don't want to show that. 3) You are not being honest and these forms are not standard. Notice how every time I get on here-I bring or stick to facts...rather than just name calling without warrant. Look at what some of you wrote and ask yourself where that came from? This thread is now out of control. Here is another challenge. Who here..will not only give me their name but allow me to bill you $300 if you say something untrue about me and I can prove it? That would cut down on the time it takes me to respond to 10 different untrue attacks being rapid-fired to wear me down and waste my time.If you are confident in your stances, not using hyperbolie, gaslighting, oversimplifying, exaggerating for outright lying, that is not even a challenge-right? So let's get to the heart of it and do this. Anyone who won't take ALL of these challenges but sides with JRoot is obviously not being honest with themselves. Stop with the name calling and the nastiness. I have asked you nicely to argue or debate like adults and if you can't do that then you shouldn't be allowed on a professional forum.JRoot can fend for himself and again if he had done that honorably, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Newby]

JRoot makes his persona public for the sake of getting agents. In doing so and in that this forum allowed for an honest discussion of the pros and cons of his business I have a right to express what I think is a key factor that new agents should be aware of before joining his agency. At 1st he said that I misinterpreted it and they don't have releases like this that put the outstanding commissions on the new IMO and then he changed his stance to -"yes, we do put the financial burden on the other IMO but that is standard." I never brought his name up in the 1st post. I addressed the agency. JRoot made the choice to then tell a lie about me which was that I was misinterpreting and then he crossed the line and broke the law. Obviously, if you do things like that I am going to defend myself and let you know that I know how to protect myself. At the point he launched into me-there is not a way to come out winning-is there? If I allow him-well then there you go...he showed her. Clearly she wasn't being honest. If I fight back-I am a uncoachable hot tempered immature Karen. Okay. Call me Karen then. That law exists to stop exactly what happened and protect people. As a business owner, your image is presumed to be public however he could have posted as Joe Smoe and took up the cause for DigitalBGA and no one would know. That is a choice for each of us.To be public or private For all I know, some taking up for him, work for him, with him, have close associations and common interests or are him. That is fine. As an individual I have the right to remain private. You don't decide for me and you don't get to intimidate someone by doxing them because you don't like their opinion especially when facts back that opinion up. You are a hypocrite for telling me to grow up when, if JRoot had not made it personal and just showed the release early on and then articulated why he feels it is justified like an adult, then we definitely wouldn't be here.

So are you saying the only thing he did wrong was use a standard release form that everyone uses and you didn't understand why that was necessary?
Do you understand that 90% of agencies won't release at all?
Do you understand why insurance companies even have a 6-month waiting period? They really would prefer that none of us would release.