Final Expense: Foresters Vs RNA?

[WinoBlues]

State wide.

Well that did not help.

 

[theinsuranceman]

Well that did not help.

Sure it did. I'll be in any zip that you do a drop in.

 

[WinoBlues]

Sure it did. I'll be in any zip that you do a drop in.

I was just joking with you.

 

[maniacagent]

Try us out, not much phases some of us.

OK-here it is: I wrote a policy in 2009 and I wrote it with the correct premium which they confirmed was the correct premium.

However upon issue they asked for another $2 or so per month. I asked why....they told me it was because when they confirmed the rate over the weekend on their software their own software "malfunctioned" over the weekend and gave the $2 higher rate. They told me they had to use the rate when the software was malfunctioning.

I told them no...as I quote the correct rate, Foresters said it was the correct rate, and my field office originally provided the rate and the field office did the uote correctly.

So instead of correct THEIR OWN ERROR they issued the policy dated 2007 instead of 2009. So since this was a 20 term policy it now was issued with 18 years remaining.


The customer was in his mid forties, no health issues, this was non-med...like well under $150,000 term. I think it was like $50,000 term.

 

[Norwayguy]

OK-here it is: I wrote a policy in 2009 and I wrote it with the correct premium which they confirmed was the correct premium.

However upon issue they asked for another $2 or so per month. I asked why....they told me it was because when they confirmed the rate over the weekend on their software their own software "malfunctioned" over the weekend and gave the $2 higher rate. They told me they had to use the rate when the software was malfunctioning.

I told them no...as I quote the correct rate, Foresters said it was the correct rate, and my field office originally provided the rate and the field office did the uote correctly.

So instead of correct THEIR OWN ERROR they issued the policy dated 2007 instead of 2009. So since this was a 20 term policy it now was issued with 18 years remaining.

The customer was in his mid forties, no health issues, this was non-med...like well under $150,000 term. I think it was like $50,000 term.

Did you ever ask how they justified the 2 year backdate with the signed application and the date there and the lack of 2 years back premium. Why couldn't they have cancelled the app and redo it after the weekend screwup?

 

[rousemark]

OK-here it is: I wrote a policy in 2009 and I wrote it with the correct premium which they confirmed was the correct premium.

However upon issue they asked for another $2 or so per month. I asked why....they told me it was because when they confirmed the rate over the weekend on their software their own software "malfunctioned" over the weekend and gave the $2 higher rate. They told me they had to use the rate when the software was malfunctioning.

I told them no...as I quote the correct rate, Foresters said it was the correct rate, and my field office originally provided the rate and the field office did the uote correctly.

So instead of correct THEIR OWN ERROR they issued the policy dated 2007 instead of 2009. So since this was a 20 term policy it now was issued with 18 years remaining.


The customer was in his mid forties, no health issues, this was non-med...like well under $150,000 term. I think it was like $50,000 term.

Two year backdate? Is that even legal? Would it mean the policy is immediately incontestable? Computer foul up or not.. Was the premium the one they had on file with the state in which it was issued? Sounds like the Canucks are wanting to make the rules as they go.

 

[maniacagent]

Did you ever ask how they justified the 2 year backdate with the signed application and the date there and the lack of 2 years back premium. Why couldn't they have cancelled the app and redo it after the weekend screwup?

I asked them everything. This act took a five person committe it appears based on the people copied in the emails. Like I said earlier. I have no clue. I have been licensed 31 years and have never seen anything like it before. I am still pushng them to issue it correctly. We shall see what happens. I am going up a layer in the corporation.......which has been really hard to do....like almost impossible.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two year backdate? Is that even legal? Would it mean the policy is immediately incontestable? Computer foul up or not.. Was the premium the one they had on file with the state in which it was issued? Sounds like the Canucks are wanting to make the rules as they go.

I think somehow they rationalized that the guy got "gifted" the 2 year incontestable thing and so that justified them on the policy. I can't speak for them. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

 

[jacobtn]

why are you still fighting it? Sounds like the client is in a good situation. As screwy as Foresters is they are likely to rescind the whole thing if you push hard enough. More likely to do that then anything you are trying to get accomplished.

I asked them everything. This act took a five person committe it appears based on the people copied in the emails. Like I said earlier. I have no clue. I have been licensed 31 years and have never seen anything like it before. I am still pushng them to issue it correctly. We shall see what happens. I am going up a layer in the corporation.......which has been really hard to do....like almost impossible.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


I think somehow they rationalized that the guy got "gifted" the 2 year incontestable thing and so that justified them on the policy. I can't speak for them. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

 

[senior-advisor-indiana]

why are you still fighting it? Sounds like the client is in a good situation. As screwy as Foresters is they are likely to rescind the whole thing if you push hard enough. More likely to do that then anything you are trying to get accomplished.

Actually he should just replace it. Since they are acting as if he has had it for 2 years, there shouldn't be a chargeback.

 

[maniacagent]

Actually he should just replace it. Since they are acting as if he has had it for 2 years, there shouldn't be a chargeback.

You are right about replacing. I guess that would be better. Hmmm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

why are you still fighting it? Sounds like the client is in a good situation. As screwy as Foresters is they are likely to rescind the whole thing if you push hard enough. More likely to do that then anything you are trying to get accomplished.

I don't know hat basis they could do that. I have very few cases with Foresters. Just how screwy have you found them? hat's the screwiest?