Which Companies Are Thr Easiest to Beat?

[Rearden]

NO problem.. we are cool except when you insinuate that everyone who does not hold to your view on replacement is unethical....

Just because some replacements are unethical does not make ALL replacements unethical.

And usually people who argue otherwise drink the Kool-aide of Captivity.

I had a case pay out $22,000 to a family that was contested. He had $12,000 in coverage and was the picture of health at the time of getting him approved.

Do you think the family really minded waiting an extra 90 days to get an additional $10,000 in death benefit? Was I unethical for making this sale?

On the other hand, I have left alone existing coverage and only added to it when it was clear there was no measurable way to improve the client's insurance situation via a policy consolidation that offers better coverage at the same price. I do this way more often than rolling coverage over into one plan.

 

[sirherbie]

Dave just curious. You've been writing for about 4 yrs now and I assume 200-300 policy's a yr. So that's 800-1000 policys. About how many contestable claims have you had and approximately what % of those contestable claims were paid?

 

[Rearden]

Dave just curious. You've been writing for about 4 yrs now and I assume 200-300 policy's a yr. So that's 800-1000 policys. About how many contestable claims have you had and approximately what % of those contestable claims were paid?

Not exactly sure. I had two death claims this year that were contestable and both were paid.

Lafayette took 3 months to pay (Insured used the VA to boot), and Transamerica - after 7 to 8 months - finally paid on another claim.

I have had a multiple of that that have died this year 2 to 4 years into his or her policy. Still, not a gigantic number.

 

[rousemark]

I had a case where I wrote a replacement policy on Thursday. The wife called me Saturday morning at 7:00 AM wanting to know how much insurance her husband had. He had had a fatal heart attack early that morning. I explained to her that the original policy was still in force and that the replacement application to American Pioneer Life had not even arrived in the Home Office since I had just mailed it Friday morning but that after an investigation of the facts, if they determined they would have issued the policy had he lived, that one would pay also. ( That is why if a company will issue a binding receipt with temporary coverage, you should always collect money with the app) ..

APL processed the app as they normally would, got the medical records and then called me to let me know me the claim was approved pending the receipt of the death certificate. After that was sent to them, they issued the check the day after it was received. Actually ended up delivering that check before I delivered the check for the original incontestable policy.

 

[cb85]

NO problem.. we are cool except when you insinuate that everyone who does not hold to your view on replacement is unethical....

Now now. I never called anyone unethical I just said they practice unethical behavior and I stand by my comment but then again you don't know what I don't tell you

 

[rousemark]

Now now. I never called anyone unethical I just said they practice unethical behavior and I stand by my comment but then again you don't know what I don't tell you

If you practice unethical behavior, then you are not ethical.. There is no "grey" area there.. You either are or you are not.

 

[cb85]

If you practice unethical behavior, then you are not ethical.. There is no "grey" area there.. You either are or you are not.

Of course not. I have no statistics of this, but based on the what I've seen most agents are still fairly new to the insurance business. If they see a cheaper premium they replace with no notion of how longer the customer has had the plan, which riders may be included in that plan, and not considering the credibility of the company they have coverage through. That would be unethical practice, but that doesn't mean the are unethical. They made a mistake. But to simply replace because of price, is wrong. But you disagree so with your 44 years of experience, I'd love to know what factors are involved in the companies you choose to write business with? What makes an insurance company better than others? Is there any companies you refuse to write and prefer to write with?

----------

Just because some replacements are unethical does not make ALL replacements unethical.

And usually people who argue otherwise drink the Kool-aide of Captivity.

I had a case pay out $22,000 to a family that was contested. He had $12,000 in coverage and was the picture of health at the time of getting him approved.

Do you think the family really minded waiting an extra 90 days to get an additional $10,000 in death benefit? Was I unethical for making this sale?

On the other hand, I have left alone existing coverage and only added to it when it was clear there was no measurable way to improve the client's insurance situation via a policy consolidation that offers better coverage at the same price. I do this way more often than rolling coverage over into one plan.

No, I'm not captive. Take the same example you just said and imagine if they didn't get paid out because something that showed in his medical record, what then?

So same question I asked louis, what determines a company is better for the client? Is it based on price alone or what other factors play a role in deciding that? Also, to your example, what standard have you set for yourself that you feel it's worth replacing for? If you can get them the same coverage, but save them 50 cents a month would you replace? How about $5 a month? When is it in the client's best interest to replace?

 

[rousemark]

Of course not. I have no statistics of this, but based on the what I've seen most agent sare still fairly new to the insurance business. If they see a cheaper premium they replace with no notion of how longer the customer has had the plan, which riders may be included in that plan, and not considering the credibility of the company they have coverage through. That would be unethical practice, but that doesn't mean the are unethical. They made a mistake. But to simply replace because of price, is wrong. But you disagree so with your 44 years of experience, I'd love to know what factors are involved in the companies you choose to write business with? What makes an insurance company better than others? Is there any companies you refuse to write and prefer to write with?

----------

It seems you are confusing lack of ethics with ignorance or lack of knowledge. Unethical is when you intentionally do something with the full knowledge of it being wrong.

As for the choice of companies, the criteria one uses to choose them is always going to be subjective. Unfortunately the way our industry has progressed, a company can be great one day and terrible the next becasue of a merger, buyout or change in management. Settlers Life is an example. We first started writing them in the mid 80s. They were a great, small "family" owned company. When they introduced their cancer product, we jumped on it. It was a good product, fairly priced and they paid their claims. But, unlike the life insurance which they kept in house, they re-insured the cancer product. The reinsurance comapny was owned by a crook who absconded with the money which threw Settlers into receivership. They remained under the supervision of the VA DOI until NGL bought them. At the time we were writing them, there was absolutely no reason to believe they would be declared insolvent in just a few years.

----------

----------




So same question I asked louis, what determines a company is better for the client? Is it based on price alone or what other factors play a role in deciding that? Also, to your example, what standard have you set for yourself that you feel it's worth replacing for? If you can get them the same coverage, but save them 50 cents a month would you replace? How about $5 a month? When is it in the client's best interest to replace?

Again, this is subjective but it boils down to the answer to this question. "do you honestly think it is in the best interest of the client or are you just doing it because you get paid a commission?" ... If the latter, then you should leave it alone and to replace it would be unethical. I have know some agents that were arrogant enough to justify replacements by saying, "The client is better off because they get me for an agent"

As for something showing up in the medical records, if the client (and the agent) is honest on the application, the MIB is run and an RX is run, there will seldom be a problem with that. Believe me when I say most of us old folks know what we have been to a Dr. for and what he said..even if we don't want to agree with his diagnosis or follow his instructions. May happen tomorrow but so far, I have never had a death claim denied..

 

[Rearden]

Of course not. I have no statistics of this, but based on the what I've seen most agents are still fairly new to the insurance business. If they see a cheaper premium they replace with no notion of how longer the customer has had the plan, which riders may be included in that plan, and not considering the credibility of the company they have coverage through. That would be unethical practice, but that doesn't mean the are unethical. They made a mistake. But to simply replace because of price, is wrong. But you disagree so with your 44 years of experience, I'd love to know what factors are involved in the companies you choose to write business with? What makes an insurance company better than others? Is there any companies you refuse to write and prefer to write with?

----------



No, I'm not captive. Take the same example you just said and imagine if they didn't get paid out because something that showed in his medical record, what then?

So same question I asked louis, what determines a company is better for the client? Is it based on price alone or what other factors play a role in deciding that? Also, to your example, what standard have you set for yourself that you feel it's worth replacing for? If you can get them the same coverage, but save them 50 cents a month would you replace? How about $5 a month? When is it in the client's best interest to replace?

Good to see you are asking more reasonable questions.

To address your first question, it is moot. There was no problems because I properly asked him the health questions on the application, used a carrier that pulled detailed underwriting (versus a carrier that does not do MIB/Rx checks), and felt confident that replacing his coverage would be a net improvement in his insurance situation enough to offer what I have.

As addressed in my prior post, this particular replacement situation did not warrant any concerns enough to NOT replace what he has, therefore I felt reasonably assured that he would not get rescinded if he passed away in contestibility (and he didn't when his coverage was contested).

What determines my recommendation is based off of the same steps I take to sell a policy where I do not replace. I assess what they have currently. I assess their health. I ask the questions. And if something is uncovered during my fact-finding, I present to them options that they may see an advantage if they were to take it and replace what they have.

Of course this all hinges upon an *ethical* assessment of the prospect if I'm going to suggest replacement. Clearly, I am not going to clean-sheet to get the added premium volume, or fabricate in application for coverage simply for my increased gain if they cannot qualify for it.

Assuming the prospect meets the guidelines of actually GETTING insured with my suggested carrier for replacement, I show them the options and let them decide if it is a measurable advantage to take up my offer.

However, I rarely offer replacements when I am saving them $5 a month in coverage, especially if it's out of contestibility. Simply put, I am not sold on all the added effort to flip policies, and think the advantage of a non-contestable policy is worth paying a meager sum more relative to what I can offer.

But if they are paying upwards of $20-$30 more a month with an overpriced Lincoln Heritage plan and out of contestability? Or if they have $4000 in coverage and I can get them $8000 with one of my price-buster carriers that does significant MIB/Rx checks on the spot? You're damn right I'm going to offer them coverage because the opportunity outweighs the potential risk.

At the end of the day, if you are not comfortable replacing for the reasons you indicated, that's totally fine. I respect that and see your point of view. However, my point is that there are obvious situations where offering a replacement sale is of net advantage to your client, and it is not unethical behavior to have your client (and yourself) benefit from making a replacement sale.

 

[Baseball7]

6 Month old LH $78/mo 10K w/25k Rider

New Carrier 60/mo 10K
Child 25K Policy 10.50/mo

CB thoughts?