Release of Agent Question

[pita]

Why is a release needed from an IMO if no contract is obtained or signed with the IMO(only contracts signed are with the ins companies directly) and no policies have been written with them and not captive with them?

Why do they have a say in regards to being able to move on?

Just trying to figure things out.

Thanks for the help.

 

[pfg1]

Its not always req'd. I moved a contract from one IMO to another earlier this year, didn't ask for release or need one. I just left.

I swear I think some IMO's just like to make agents lives miserable if they choose to contract somewhere else. Like they get their feelings hurt or something. I do know that some have to "allow" you to move (sign off)....which is ridiculous to me. Some carriers also allow dual contracting, not sure which do and which do not.

 

[Todd King]

Why is a release needed from an IMO if no contract is obtained or signed with the IMO(only contracts signed are with the ins companies directly) and no policies have been written with them and not captive with them?

Why do they have a say in regards to being able to move on?

Just trying to figure things out.

Thanks for the help.

You won't find this written in any contract but most companies won't allow you to move to a new IMO within 6 months of the last piece of business written (or the contract date in the case no business is written). If you are within the 6 months it is normal to need a release. This is company rules, not the rule of the IMO.

Now, the IMO can choose to give you that release or they can be total asses and keep you from moving it until the 6 months is up. Once the 6 months are up then they have no say in it.

The reasons behind this is that many agents would jump from one ship to the other in a heartbeat. Can you imagine what an overload that would be on the contracting departments of these companies if they just let an agent move anytime they wanted to?

Disclaimer: Most companies operate like this. There are a few who don't.

 

[donamese]

Why is a release needed from an IMO if no contract is obtained or signed with the IMO(only contracts signed are with the ins companies directly) and no policies have been written with them and not captive with them?

Why do they have a say in regards to being able to move on?

Just trying to figure things out.

Thanks for the help.

While it is frustrating because not all IMOs are equal. Some simply send you contracting then take an overwrite. Others do a large amount of training, some provide back end support, some offer leads. The carrier doesn't know who does what. An agent could get all the training from one upline then jump ship to another IMO who gives higher commissions because they do nothing for support. Not exactly great for the original IMO. This is what carriers are helping to protect them from.

 

[Norwayguy]

You won't find this written in any contract but most companies won't allow you to move to a new IMO within 6 months of the last piece of business written (or the contract date in the case no business is written). If you are within the 6 months it is normal to need a release. This is company rules, not the rule of the IMO.

Now, the IMO can choose to give you that release or they can be total asses and keep you from moving it until the 6 months is up. Once the 6 months are up then they have no say in it.

The reasons behind this is that many agents would jump from one ship to the other in a heartbeat. Can you imagine what an overload that would be on the contracting departments of these companies if they just let an agent move anytime they wanted to?

Disclaimer: Most companies operate like this. There are a few who don't.

But Todd lets be real here...Your not contracting an agent with the state again ie appointment all that is needed is xyz agent number is now under this downline, yes a cost for the carrier but a minor one and don't try and tell me this does not come from the top IMO's wanting this protection. Personally I have no problem with it, but why if its a contract we are signing is it not part of the contract?

 

[jdeasy]

Why is a release needed from an IMO if no contract is obtained or signed with the IMO(only contracts signed are with the ins companies directly) and no policies have been written with them and not captive with them?

Why do they have a say in regards to being able to move on?

Just trying to figure things out.

Thanks for the help.

Needing to be released is the dirty secret between the companies and the IMO's. It's something you agreed to but they use it against you. It would not stand up in court but by the time you got it to court and got a decision the waiting period would have passed.

The companies and IMO's know this.

It's a real scumbag IMO that won't release absence of debt. And most of them are scumbags.

The vast majority of IMO's will not release agents. Being able to get released is probably the best thing this forum brought to the independent agent.

I don't of an IMO that has a regular presence here that will not release today. Some of them were adamant in the past about not releasing but that has changed.

 

[FinalExpenseDojo.com]

Reason is because of debt. You quit the business & all of a sudden you have no money to pay for your $10,000 in charge backs that you rewrite with another IMO. Who do you think has to repay that money?

What happens when 10 agents quit at once?

Some IMOs can't afford to take that risk. Others can. Simple as that. Why would they care where you go?

 

[jdeasy]

Reason is because of debt. You quit the business & all of a sudden you have no money to pay for your $10,000 in charge backs that you rewrite with another IMO. Who do you think has to repay that money?

What happens when 10 agents quit at once?

Some IMOs can't afford to take that risk. Others can. Simple as that. Why would they care where you go?

Nonsense!! Debt is a good reason to not release. No one disagrees with that. Pay the debt and then get released.

Doesn't work like that. The scumbags will not release you from a contract you did not sign even when there is no debt.

It's a dirty deal between the crooked IMO's and the companies. The agent is just in the middle of this dirty deal.