I'm studying for my exam and have some questions...

[DHK]

I personally like it as it is how I like to compare, etc. But I don't think the carrier, the compliance dept or the state insurance dept would approve & they all would hold it to the marketing standards of the state

Looks good enough for the company's illustration software. Mine is far more 'wordy'.



In the real world (not 'compliance-land'), mine would hold up as a proper disclosure.

 

[Allen Trent]

Looks good enough for the company's illustration software. Mine is far more 'wordy'.

View attachment 8435

In the real world (not 'compliance-land'), mine would hold up as a proper disclosure.

Just make sure your supplemental illustration has the exact carrier policy form number that is filed with the state referenced on the document & meets all the font requirements. Most states require the exact policy form be listed, even on mailers, billboards, etc so that a consumer can pull the product filing up from the state

 

[DHK]

Yeah... You know that California is big on font requirements.

 

[DHK]

Not necessary though. It's not a mass produced document. It's personalized to the client. There's a difference between advertising and planning.

 

[Allen Trent]

Not necessary though. It's not a mass produced document. It's personalized to the client. There's a difference between advertising and planning.

I don't think so. Look at the carrier supplement pages you posted. It lists the policy form version as filed & even modified the total number of pages for the illustration

 

[DHK]

But my documents (or any other planning software) are not created by the insurance company. They're created by myself or other 3rd parties.

I've never seen any planning software of any kind, anywhere, require the policy form # for their output pages.

I'm not going to either.

 

[Allen Trent]

But my documents (or any other planning software) are not created by the insurance company. They're created by myself or other 3rd parties.

I've never seen any planning software of any kind, anywhere, require the policy form # for their output pages.

I'm not going to either.

Difference from generic planning software is they are carrier agnostic. You are an agent for the carrier showing a specific product that you then are dissecting to show the client to help make the sale of the specific product

 

[DHK]

I look forward to seeing the court case or other complaint where the policy # not being listed was the basis for a complaint for agent or advisor financial planning.

Until then, it's a non-issue to worry about.

In fact... based on this article, and the organization behind it... I highly doubt that listing policy #'s on supplemental reports is the issue:

https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion...from-misleading-life-insurance-and-annuities/

[EXTERNAL LINK] - Life Insurance Consumer Advocacy Center – Alerting the public to life insurance risks

Btw, that organization was a similar 187 law for California agents.

 

[Spin]

Xcel:
During the application process, a statement made by an applicant that becomes part of the contract is considered to be a warranty.

A.D. Banker:
Statements made by the applicant on the application are considered representations and not warranties.

Which one is correct?

 

[Tahoe Ray]

Xcel:
During the application process, a statement made by an applicant that becomes part of the contract is considered to be a warranty.

A.D. Banker:
Statements made by the applicant on the application are considered representations and not warranties.

Which one is correct?

I would guess that the carriers consider statements as representations.