Unscrupulous Agents...

[rousemark]

That lady died about a year later. What if I had busted that agent on the old policy? technically I should have. In reality it's never bothered me that I didn't.

Shouldn't have. You acted in the client's best interest.

 

[BenS]

I had one today where an Old American agent wrote a 5k NT policy on a lady in November of 2011. She easily smokes 2 packs a day. She told me that she had told the agent that she was "quitting" when the agent wrote the app.

I looked at the policy and sure enough the agent wrote her as NT in the past 12 months. I replaced it with smoker rates because she had just started the NT policy. It is a tough one to figure out when something like that should be replaced. Maybe under a year?

On a side note... I had to come home early today because this lady and her son were obscenely chain smoking inside the small trailer in which they lived. Even half a bottle of febreze couldn't get that smell out. They probably went through a pack together in the hour I was there.

 

[Rearden]

Ahh, I love final expense sales.

Wait until you run into a hooker.

 

[WinoBlues]

Ahh, I love final expense sales.

Wait until you run into a hooker.

I did one. No wait, that did not sound the way I meant it. I did a case on one. She had a great condo in Walnut Creek. Her little daughter was in one of the best private schools in the area. She worked out of a Berkeley massage parlor. I worked at John Hancock at the time. She always offered me cold Heine. Great referrals.

I have a client now that I think is on the other end of that pay scale.

 

[Rearden]

Update: Lady ended up keeping the AmCon policy.

 

[Newby]

I wonder if the agent read her the fraud statement?

Do all states require that?

 

[Rearden]

Not in GA.

Actually she's keeping the AmCon AND my Forresters Modifed plan...

 

[jdeasy]

Not in GA.

Actually she's keeping the AmCon AND my Forresters Modifed plan...

So much for her feeling like she had been "had" on the AmCon policy!

 

[rousemark]

I It is a tough one to figure out when something like that should be replaced. Maybe under a year?

.

If the application has a contestable "error" and the policy is in the contestable period but you can provide immediate coverage by answering the questions correctly, replacement would always be justified. In some jurisdictions, misrepresenting smoking status is not a contestable error. The policy states that the face amount will be adjusted to provide the amount that would have been purchased had the smoking status had been stated correctly.