Non Compete & Non Solicitation

[LGilmore]

"Gotta change my glasses.. But the commission would have no reason to get involved in a replacement dispute as long as the proper forms are executed. "

This would be generated in situations where WLs were replacing WLs, and yes, the OIC would become involved if the volume of these replacements were excessive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the main emphasis of both carriers NWM and Guar is WL. Replacing term is a common practice, but WL to WL usually isn't because of the cost of the transaction.

You are correct the OIC would not involve itself in company vs. company spats over agents, but insureds? absolutely. Paperwork filled out correctly isn't a guarantee of non intervention by the OIC.

From the start of this post I have questioned the moving of 15 agents and their existing clients. Companies like NWM usually pay less 1st year commission, but greater renewals and usually other overrides. The only way to recover that "loss" to the agent would be to rewrite those clients... which is where the potential trouble begins.

 

[rousemark]

For the record, the entire post was a joke. Only a psychopath would conduct themselves that way. That being said, if the OP wants to try it, please let us know so that we can get our popcorn ready...

I was joking about that too...

Please accept my apology. Maybe I need to spring for the drinks to go with the popcorn.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

When I left a certain captive company two things happened about 6 months after I was gone. 1: Got a cease and desist regarding posting any negative information about them. 2) They sent a letter to the MD insurance commissioner recommending that they revoke my license for churning and posting defamatory statements about them.

When I found out the truth about what I was selling you bet your a** I called my clients back. But I also covered my rear by meeting with the DOI....8 hour meeting which included their attorney and compliance officer. I was fine.

Do note, however, that the captive outfit absolutely noticed that I was calling clients to replace them and tried to get my license revoked over it.

 

[rousemark]

"Gotta change my glasses.. But the commission would have no reason to get involved in a replacement dispute as long as the proper forms are executed. "

This would be generated in situations where WLs were replacing WLs, and yes, the OIC would become involved if the volume of these replacements were excessive.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the main emphasis of both carriers NWM and Guar is WL. Replacing term is a common practice, but WL to WL usually isn't because of the cost of the transaction.

You are correct the OIC would not involve itself in company vs. company spats over agents, but insureds? absolutely. Paperwork filled out correctly isn't a guarantee of non intervention by the OIC.

From the start of this post I have questioned the moving of 15 agents and their existing clients. Companies like NWM usually pay less 1st year commission, but greater renewals and usually other overrides. The only way to recover that "loss" to the agent would be to rewrite those clients... which is where the potential trouble begins.

May have happened but in my 40 yrs as a TN agent I have never known the TN Dept. to get involved based upon a complaint from a company or agent even when WL to WL replacements are involved if done correctly. WL to WL replacement happen all the time.. Especially with FE policies.

The only time I have known of the Dept getting involved is when the complaint came from an insured. And, even then no action was taken as long as the agent complied with the replacement regulations, dotting all his Is and crossing all his Ts.

When I started, almost every replacement involved WL to WL.. Term didn't have the popularity it has today and there were no ULs, ISWL, IULs, or any of the blended products, etc.

However, in a state other than TN, none of this might be true. Each state has its own regs when it comes to replacements.

 

[LGilmore]

rouse?

What I do mean is an insured driven complaint. While you've cited a single insured transaction, several over a short time period by a single agent (or 15) would most likely draw the interest of the OIC. I think it's known as churning. In my state they do go after agents who replace business because they changed companies.

One or two, nope probably not going to draw review. 5+ yea, I think so...