Motorists FE Policy... Hmm...

[Mash]

The item about Foresters being able to raise rates or lower coverage being BS is exaggerated.

Your answer was how many times in their over 100 year history have they exercised this right. That answer does NOT even go with the comment I made.

I didn't ask if they had raised rates, read the comment again.
If Foresters has NO intention of ever having to raise rates or lower benefits. . .then why is that statement a part of their contract.

My comment is not BS. . . anybody who puts something in a contract anticipates using that option at some point in the future if the situation warrants.
What they have done. . . or haven't done in the past has NO bearing.

 

[VolAgent]

The item about Foresters being able to raise rates or lower coverage being BS is exaggerated.

Your answer was how many times in their over 100 year history have they exercised this right. That answer does NOT even go with the comment I made.

I didn't ask if they had raised rates, read the comment again.
If Foresters has NO intention of ever having to raise rates or lower benefits. . .then why is that statement a part of their contract.

My comment is not BS. . . anybody who puts something in a contract anticipates using that option at some point in the future if the situation warrants.
What they have done. . . or haven't done in the past has NO bearing.

They are a fraternal. Please correct me if I am wrong, but they are required to do that. That is part of what being a fraternal is. Fraternals do not have access to the state guaranty fund, but they can change the contract if necessary to protect the organization if it is in the interest of the members as a whole.

 

[rousemark]

Originally Posted by MashImage:
Image:
Image:
Image:

Reference the post where an agent wrote 6 Motorist polkicies but most of them were replaced by Foresters at 12% lower premium​

Did you re-visit your client and point out, in the Forester's "certificate" (Not a policy) on page 14 that there is a hading titled "Maintenance of Reserve Requirements"? This paragraph gives Foresters the right to increase premiums at will if the reserves need to be "beefed up" or to correspondingly reduce the insured's coverages in order to maintain reserves.​

Most Foresters "Members" (Not policy holders, since they do not issue policies, only certificates) do not know this. Just go to page 14 and read the paragraph to your client and then let me know if they want to keep Foresters after that.​

That seem like a BS scare tactic to me. How m,any times in their 130+ year history have they ever raised rates?

I'm not a fan of Foresters, but not for that reason. There are enough reasons to not like Foresters than to come up gimmicks.




I agree with Jd's assement of that. If your using crap like that to try and close deals your spending way too much time and are giving them to many reasons to "think about
it"

reminds me of the statement

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit

Yeah .. and it was impossible for one of the largest Mutual companies in the US to fail.... Oops.. Somebody forgot to tell Mutual Benefit that. 130+ years? MBL was in business for 146 years. Longevity does not protect people from something happening. The facts are that a Fraternal can levy assessments against their certificate holders. Forrester's may not have ever done it but others have and there is no guarantee that Forrester's will not in the future.

The other issue is what happens to the certificate holders if the Fraternal cannot raise enough by assessments and goes belly up? At least the policyholders of a stock or mutual life company have some backup if their company folds.

Since when is giving a client all the facts and not just the ones we like BS?

 

[Newby]

It's not BS if it's written in the policy.

The agent selling it SHOULD be the one explaining it. Not the next agent that comes along.

 

[nfl72]

stated by Mash

"The item about Foresters being able to raise rates or lower coverage being BS is exaggerated".


so does that mean it is just a little BS?



Read more: Motorists FE Policy... Hmm... - Page 2 by Mash

"

 

[Rearden]

So the lady with the Motorists policy called me back and said it has a 2-year waiting period -- confirmed by Customer Service.

Going to replace it tomorrow morning.

 

[jdeasy]

Yeah .. and it was impossible for one of the largest Mutual companies in the US to fail.... Oops.. Somebody forgot to tell Mutual Benefit that. 130+ years? MBL was in business for 146 years. Longevity does not protect people from something happening. The facts are that a Fraternal can levy assessments against their certificate holders. Forrester's may not have ever done it but others have and there is no guarantee that Forrester's will not in the future.

The other issue is what happens to the certificate holders if the Fraternal cannot raise enough by assessments and goes belly up? At least the policyholders of a stock or mutual life company have some backup if their company folds.

Since when is giving a client all the facts and not just the ones we like BS?

And was this one instance you keep bring up an A rated company or were they some little mom and pop operation?

You guys keep using scare tactics while I keep writing the best companies out there for the client.

 

[Rearden]

S&P AAA+ AIG -- traunched sub-prime's are virtually riskless...

And was this one instance you keep bring up an A rated company or were they some little mom and pop operation?

You guys keep using scare tactics while I keep writing the best companies out there for the client.

 

[rousemark]

And was this one instance you keep bring up an A rated company or were they some little mom and pop operation?

You guys keep using scare tactics while I keep writing the best companies out there for the client.

JD: Mutual benefit was one of the largest and oldest mutual companies in the US. They had top ratings from every rating company.

Executive Life failed in 1991. It was the largest Life insurance company in California and one of the largest in the US. It was also top rated. They got caught up in the Michael Milkin affair.

On a smaller scale, Setters Life was a well respected, solvent company. They were selling cancer policies that the re insured with an approved re insurer. Unfortunately, the reinsurance company was owned by Martin Frankle who was raiding the reinsurance company's assets. When the reinsurance company was placed in receivership, that transferred the polices back to Settlers. they didn't have enough assests to cover them and they were forced into receivership.

We all know the AIG tale.

If it could happen to these companies, it certainly could happen to a fraternal that doesn't have nearly the assets of a Mutual Benefit, Executive Life or AIG.

I am not saying that an assessment will ever need to be levied but agent can't go around saying, as many do, "it has never happened (which isn't true) and therefore it will never happen in the future.

BTW.. I find it hard to believe there is no good USA company that can't do as good a job for your client. I would think you would feel about the same about writing business with a Canuck company as you feel about Farm Bureau... At least FB is American. Selling Forrester's is kind of like buying a Toyota isn't it?

 

[jdeasy]

JD: Mutual benefit was one of the largest and oldest mutual companies in the US. They had top ratings from every rating company.

Executive Life failed in 1991. It was the largest Life insurance company in California and one of the largest in the US. It was also top rated. They got caught up in the Michael Milkin affair.

On a smaller scale, Setters Life was a well respected, solvent company. They were selling cancer policies that the re insured with an approved re insurer. Unfortunately, the reinsurance company was owned by Martin Frankle who was raiding the reinsurance company's assets. When the reinsurance company was placed in receivership, that transferred the polices back to Settlers. they didn't have enough assests to cover them and they were forced into receivership.

We all know the AIG tale.

If it could happen to these companies, it certainly could happen to a fraternal that doesn't have nearly the assets of a Mutual Benefit, Executive Life or AIG.

I am not saying that an assessment will ever need to be levied but agent can't go around saying, as many do, "it has never happened (which isn't true) and therefore it will never happen in the future.

BTW.. I find it hard to believe there is no good USA company that can't do as good a job for your client. I would think you would feel about the same about writing business with a Canuck company as you feel about Farm Bureau... At least FB is American. Selling Forrester's is kind of like buying a Toyota isn't it?

I am no fan of Foresters. I very rarely write Foresters. Not because they are a fraternal. There is enough to not like about them without resorting to scare tactics.