To Surrender Form or Not

[WinoBlues]

I believe the legal definition of a replacement is "the client stops paying premiums on a policy to purchase another." So those who think by APLing it they are not replacing it are wrong and would be subject to DOI penalties. But is it worth the effort to go after them?

Yeah, probably not. I am trashing him to the family for letting it APL when he told them it had lapsed. When I replace him I may let him know he should just back off. Again, I will compete with anyone head to head. But if I have to play by the rules he needs to.

?. If a replacement is not done correctly is that grounds to contest a claim or rescind a policy?

 

[rousemark]

Yeah, probably not. I am trashing him to the family for letting it APL when he told them it had lapsed. When I replace him I may let him know he should just back off. Again, I will compete with anyone head to head. But if I have to play by the rules he needs to.

?. If a replacement is not done correctly is that grounds to contest a claim or rescind a policy?

If it APLed, it had cash value.. does the family know how much they could have put in their pocket if he had "done it right"? The only way that I can think it would be contestable would be if the in force along with the new insurance would have exceed the company's financial underwriting rules and the agent didn't list the in-force coverage on the application. In that case, the company could claim they would not have issued the coverage had accurate information been disclosed on the application.

As i said said earlier, the policy owner will have to be the one to file a complaint with the DOI for anything to be done in most cases.

 

[WinoBlues]

If it APLed, it had cash value.. does the family know how much they could have put in their pocket if he had "done it right"? The only way that I can think it would be contestable would be if the in force along with the new insurance would have exceed the company's financial underwriting rules and the agent didn't list the in-force coverage on the application. In that case, the company could claim they would not have issued the coverage had accurate information been disclosed on the application.

As i said said earlier, the policy owner will have to be the one to file a complaint with the DOI for anything to be done in most cases.

Yeah, they do now. Also that the balance went into RDPU which would have been higher if he had done that 9 months ago. The owner/payor could have bought less.

DOI? Nah, I won't go there. But I will cause him grief he he does not bow out of my way when I correct all this.