My question involves insurance law for the state of: Indiana
A recently widowed older relative filed a dispute with her insurance company regarding a churning issue with a universal life policy that had been held for several years. She received a denial response from the major insurance company regarding the requested reinstatement of a policy supposedly converted from. Shockingly, (there's gambling in the casino!), the insurance company cherry picked items re their "investigation" which revolved around her agent inducing her to make a policy loan to use for purchase of an updated policy with greatly increased fees and expenses. I am of the belief that this action, as opposed to a direct conversion, is problematic in itself, but there are other substantive issues.
The Indiana Department of Insurance has not yet been contacted with the details, but I am concerned about the advisability of doing so vs. confronting the insurance company with the gory details. I am of the presumption, correct or not, that the usual disposition of such matters by state insurance departments would be to review the situation and, if they concur with the allegations or think they may have merit, that they would forward the complaint to the insurance company with an admonition to "take care of this". If such is the case or if the insurance company is instead contacted again, the concern then would be what the likely consequences of either approach would be presuming, of course, that the multifaceted complaint does have merit.
I think that the things done are so egregious that it would cause the insurance company great embarrassment if known. However, if they refuse to acknowledge their culpability, what would the next steps likely entail? The funds at issue are in the low 5 figure area such that going to court over the matter would likely not be considered. My question, finally, would be whether the resolution would be either mediation or arbitration if warranted, and, if so, how that would likely come about.
A recently widowed older relative filed a dispute with her insurance company regarding a churning issue with a universal life policy that had been held for several years. She received a denial response from the major insurance company regarding the requested reinstatement of a policy supposedly converted from. Shockingly, (there's gambling in the casino!), the insurance company cherry picked items re their "investigation" which revolved around her agent inducing her to make a policy loan to use for purchase of an updated policy with greatly increased fees and expenses. I am of the belief that this action, as opposed to a direct conversion, is problematic in itself, but there are other substantive issues.
The Indiana Department of Insurance has not yet been contacted with the details, but I am concerned about the advisability of doing so vs. confronting the insurance company with the gory details. I am of the presumption, correct or not, that the usual disposition of such matters by state insurance departments would be to review the situation and, if they concur with the allegations or think they may have merit, that they would forward the complaint to the insurance company with an admonition to "take care of this". If such is the case or if the insurance company is instead contacted again, the concern then would be what the likely consequences of either approach would be presuming, of course, that the multifaceted complaint does have merit.
I think that the things done are so egregious that it would cause the insurance company great embarrassment if known. However, if they refuse to acknowledge their culpability, what would the next steps likely entail? The funds at issue are in the low 5 figure area such that going to court over the matter would likely not be considered. My question, finally, would be whether the resolution would be either mediation or arbitration if warranted, and, if so, how that would likely come about.
Life Insurance: Policy Churning Dispute Resolution
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire