Interesting Opinion on the Neasham Railroad Job

insurehound

Guru
100+ Post Club
500
Escondido
It has been suggested that some bloodthirsty law firm may soon flood the cable TV airwaves with ads asking, “Are you a senior who bought an indexed annuity? If so, you may be eligible to recover damages in a legal action…”

That’s the kind of door the “theft” conviction in the California court case of Glenn Neasham seems to have opened. Neasham is the independent insurance agent who sold a $175,000 Allianz MasterDex 10 annuity to an 83-year-old woman in 2008. There are several key questions surrounding the specifics of the case, including whether or not she had shown signs of dementia by the time of the sale ­— and far too many to address in limited space here. (Read as much background about it as you have time for by typing “Glenn Neasham” into the search box at LifeHealthPro - insurance news & sales ideas for life & health insurance professionals and www.ProducersWeb.com.)

But one thing’s for sure: independent annuity producers are running scared in the wake of the Feb. 29 verdict, which has Neasham in financial ruin and scheduled to serve 60 days in jail starting April 18, pending an appeal. They are justifiably spooked that the case could set a damning precedent that puts annuity producers at risk. They worry that this is not necessarily a unique set of circumstances that won’t be duplicated.

Who’s going to stand up for them? If the Neasham case has taught us anything, it’s that the independent producer is essentially on his own if legal action emerges in a situation such as this. Keep that in mind. While many fellow producers have rallied around Neasham, claiming he has been railroaded by pretty much everyone involved, annuity carriers and industry trade organizations have remained deafeningly silent. The lesson: don’t count on the carrier to stand behind you, and don’t plan on any industry trade groups to step up on your behalf, either. I have come across no statements of support from any industry organization.

The result may well be that a significant number of independent producers might just stop selling FIAs to anyone who seems to be at any significant risk of being diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer’s within five years of the time of sale. How far do you need to go to protect yourself? Would a signed, notarized document from the client’s doctor certifying their mental competency at the time of the sale do it?

I’ve read several dozen remarks from producers who have chimed in via the comment boxes below the many articles that have been written about this case. The underlying theme seems to be that whenever there’s any doubt, just walk away.
I fear that as a result of this case as it stands now, they will be walking away an awful lot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This was in "Life Insurance Selling" and was written by the editor, Brian Anderson.
 
Last edited:
What is even more alarming to me is, dementia was not needed to be proven in this case for it to be the crime of theft. Dementia was thrown into the mix by the prosecutor as more "info" in making the case. She said in an interview that she did not prove he knew she had dementia, although she felt he knew or should have known.

It was being "deprived of a significant portion of her money" because this annuity had a lengthy surrender charge. This has been debated quite a bit. Its very alarming, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Don't let the facts get in the way of the story.

Dementia was proven in the case. I believe this is important to realize that there wasn't any dispute about the dementia. It was not proven that Glenn knew about the dementia, but that is different from not proving dementia.

I think the fact that she had dementia is the case, which is why this was proven. It wasn't just thrown into the mix, as you suggested.

Also, if I understand, it isn't that she was deprived of her money, its that she was deprived of the use of her money. To be honest, I don't completely get this part, except at a surface level.

Dan
 
I think the risky part here is the surrender period. 7 years is my breaking point. It's VERY tough to plan for a longer period than that. Just don't sell products that go out 10, 15, and 20 years, and it seems that you'd be okay.
 
Dementia was proven in the case. I believe this is important to realize that there wasn't any dispute about the dementia. It was not proven that Glenn knew about the dementia, but that is different from not proving dementia.

I think the fact that she had dementia is the case, which is why this was proven. It wasn't just thrown into the mix, as you suggested.

The prosecutor admitted it was not proven he knew. The jury probably felt he was a "shyster" when they heard about the dementia.

Also, if I understand, it isn't that she was deprived of her money, its that she was deprived of the use of her money. To be honest, I don't completely get this part, except at a surface level.

I don't see how its a crime. The annuity was approved for sale and passed company suitability. I don't like the annuity, but I don't think it should be a crime to sell an approved annuity that passed company suitability. He also left her with I think over 100K in liquid money.

I just don't like the precedent it sets.
 
Clearly anytime a client is up in age you should involve a relative of the client to be present for the sale.
 
I agree it was not proven that Glenn knew she had dementia, but it was proven Fran had dementia.

The prosecutors point is that if she had dementia, it isn't relevant that the agent knew that, the person can't enter a contract that ties up the use of her money.

I understand and agree with this part.

I don't agree that it makes it a criminal case though, unless he knew she had dementia and did the deal anyway. This is where I think the prosecutor may have just simply let the jury connect some dots that she didn't prove. The defense didn't disprove this though.

Dan
 
What is everyone's opinion on what the author had said? Do you agree that the carriers and associations have left Mr. Neasham out on a limb? Should more have been done on his behalf?
 
Yes, they should.

Isn't everyone surprised at how many people in our industry, especially the wholesalers, aren't even aware of the case, and haven't heard of Glenn Neasham?

This is a huge problem. We all know you don't have to be 80 years old to actually have dementia. It can happen much younger. Why should we safely assume a 50 year old has the mental capacity to invest in an annuity?
 
........ Do you agree that the carriers and associations have left Mr. Neasham out on a limb? Should more have been done on his behalf?

It is an absolute disgrace that the insurance companies didn't band together to fight for him.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top