- 2,806
A corporate attorney, sure. But litigators have to be hired locally where the claim occurs and the attorneys are licensed to practice.
Jury Awards $113.85M in United of Omaha Rescission Case
- Thread starter Northeast Agent
- Start date
A corporate attorney, sure. But litigators have to be hired locally where the claim occurs and the attorneys are licensed to practice.
- 17,063
If a guy says he doesn't smoke and he does, that was a lie. He should not get treated like a smoker who was honest.
And no, I do not think the majority of applicants lie. But the few who do need to have it blow up in their face when caught.
Yeah, that's a great thought, take the side of the insurance carrier against our clients. Those carriers really need your help. Aren't you a recruiter, imo or something?
- 10,817
For an outright intent to deceive, sure the policy should be rescinded. But it can be hard in many cases to discern the source of the discrepancy. Calling every discrepancy on an app a "lie" ends up negatively effecting the innocent policy holders.
Ive heard agents say "do you smoke cigarettes?" When the question says "tobacco".
Ive heard agents say "have you ever had any heart attacks or anything like that", when the question says "cardiovascular issues" and gives a list of conditions.
Hearing agents do apps over the phone made me realize how many do not actually read the entire question out loud. Plenty of us have heard other agents say "they will catch it on the paramed, or on the rx check, or medical records, etc.". Should those clients be penalized for having a lazy or shady agent?
And any agent doing this a while knows how many clients do not fully listen when we list a bunch of medical conditions. And I have had clients who I sincerely believe forgot being on a certain med or various things like that, especially the ones on a lot of them over the years.
Thats why carriers build in the expectation of a certain amount of incorrect answers on life apps. Unless the conversation was recorded, its close to impossible to know the actual circumstances of an incorrect health answer, and the intent behind it. Then carriers have the issue of "what if it was on the agent?" which then opens them up to liability in the situation. Which is why most do not aggressively pursue issues that are so hard to prove circumstances behind.
All of that is why courts have decided it would overwhelmingly harm innocent policyholders more than it would punish those who intentionally tried to deceive and defraud the carrier.
- 10,817
Exactly. What would it have cost MoO to pay out an amended claim vs. fighting it in court?
And thats most likely exactly why such a large punitive judgement was on the table and being considered. Id guess the insured likely would have still been approved at a different rate with such a large punitive amount being considered.
- 5,921
Less and less about the law and more and more about getting back at perceived "bad companies".
Your position as a agent is one that represents the best interest of the company you are contracted with. It's written into the contract of your company, the one that pays you.
However; I can speak out of both sides of my mouth regarding this issue, and I am one who introduces my clients to a company, but they are MY clients.
Recruiter or not has nothing to do with the fact that @Newby is spot on when it comes to lying or factual misrepresentation on a legal binding contract... plus how could you even argue with a cute looking mug like that.
Your position as a agent is one that represents the best interest of the company you are contracted with. It's written into the contract of your company, the one that pays you.
However; I can speak out of both sides of my mouth regarding this issue, and I am one who introduces my clients to a company, but they are MY clients.
Recruiter or not has nothing to do with the fact that @Newby is spot on when it comes to lying or factual misrepresentation on a legal binding contract... plus how could you even argue with a cute looking mug like that.
- 17,063
I don't give a shit who it's helping. You should want to help the people who are being honest and penalize the ones who aren't.
It's a pretty simple concept.
My position is that I represent my client, and have a right to do so in court, if necessary. That was put to the test here in NC several years ago.
Not interested in debating this, but some carriers get away with too much, imo. Btw, I wouldn't get too teary eyed over "the one that pays you". If that makes you feel better, then so be it.
I see it as every man for himself, and I would much rather stand beside my client than a corporate entity that doesn't really give a shitt what you think (companies don't have feelings). I've seen too many people burned. Sorry, nothing personal.
- 5,921
Nothing personal taken, on another day I could argue your point, just happen to get up on this side of the bed this morning.
- 17,063
I've seen companies make bad decisions too. But the way you're putting it you're going to blindly go with your client even if he's the one thats in the wrong. Because "big bad corporations".
You need to stand with the party who is being wronged. Whether that's the client or the company doesn't make any difference. If you can tell who is being wronged that's who you need to stand with. And if you can't tail then you need to step aside.
Otherwise you have no integrity.
Similar threads
