The Worst Possible Policy...

[Winter_123]

Bizarre...but true...

I received this email late last week:


The ex-wife is the client not -the husband -and your duty is to her and she needs to speak directly with you. If the husband wants to talk to you to get an idea of what is out and about for policies so that he can know what his options might be, since he has to pay for it, then I suppose there is room for that but you can't be colluding with him to provide inferior coverage and at the same time working in the best interests of the client. I assume that the court order orders him to pay for her reasonable health insurance coverage costs rather than ordering him to be a policy owner for her which would be bizarre. If he is not the policy owner and only a reimburser then she is the client and the duty is to her best interests and full disclosure to her.

As I mentioned, I dont think it is inappropriate for him to be asking and learning about what the options are to minimally meet his court ordered requirement. The poor bastard may not even be able to afford coverage for himself after the divorce so I dont bring any judgement to him or for his anger but that is why she needs to be attended to by someone on her side. It is all a matter of intent. If you sell her a policy that leaves a gap in an area where she thinks she is covered or entitled to more it will be no defense to say that the hubster didnt want that. In fact, that will hang you because it shows that you were taking orders from him. Be careful.

My view anyway.

Winter

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Great post. This all goes potentially south when you get the ex-wife on the phone...which you have to do not only to explain the coverage but also conduct the health history. If it's not a plan she likes then it turns into a nightmare.

 

[STIBROKER]

here in texas its only on the children so it makes it easy........wifes on her own......

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

Keep in mind...that she is the one that will be signing the application. She also signs a statement indicating that she has received the accompanying brochure that explains her policy as well as other available policies.

Standard op in cases like this.

I'm comfortable with this one. The ex-hubbie to be actually gets a decent policy for her and he pays less than $100 per month.

 

[Guest]

I would never take on that client.

me neither.

 

[somarco]

I dont see any liability issues. The guy paying the premium is not your client. I would consider giving the wifey a chance to upgrade out of her pocket.

Then again . . .

That could open another can of worms.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

The post where the wife is the client is the correct post. The ex-husband has nothing to do with this aside from providing his billing information. The agent must go through all the plans and details with the ex-wife, not the husband so there are no ethical issues here at all.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"The agent must go through all the plans and details with the ex-wife, not the husband so there are no ethical issues here at all."

Quite true...and that is exactly what is being done. After 26 years...you NEVER take chances.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Believe it or not, since they're formally divorced you can't even discuss anything with the husband due to HIPAA unless the ex-wife waives it.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

Actually...they aren't quite divorced yet. Otherwise, you are absolutely correct.