North American or Midland National Life

[scagnt83]

Midland is by far one of the most upstanding, ethical, and easiest to deal with carriers I have ever dealt with.

The most recent lawsuit in CA was nothing more than a grey area in the CA insurance code. Basically the policies sold (association policies) violated the 10/10 rule in CA... but the policy Situs was in another state that did not have the 10/10 regs. CA claimed they could not do that.

The biggest online complaint about Midland is from an agent, and not from consumers. I wonder if that agent is MNLU??? lol. jk (unless you are the guy who runs the midland national review site...)

Here is a response from an agent about this guy:

The original report was authored by Eric , who has brought numerous lawsuits against Midland National Life. In 1991 he was a disgrunteled agent who decided to take an employee hostage at the Midland National home office and went to prison for the crime. He owns and operates the web site midland-national-review.com and has posted the same false accusations on every other web site including this one. The man is a kook and a convicted criminal. He has never proved any of the accusations about Midland National. His latest April of 2010 lawasuit is nothing more than an attempt to extort money from Midland National.

Most consumer complaints I have found are clients upset at agents.

Midland has no more lawsuits than Anico, NYL, MM, NWM, LFG, Allianz, AG, ING, Guardian, Met, Pru, etc, etc.

If an agent refused to do business with any company that has been involved in a lawsuit they would do no business at all.

With the SSA issue, Midland was hardly the only company to have that issue. Prudential and Met were both slapped on the wrist for that as well.


Obviously this MNLU guy has some type of vendetta against Midland. Maybe he was caught up in the CA debacle here recently... idk. But to post that they are some type of exception is just complete and total BS.

 

[MNLU]

First, I don't agree with much of what BNTRS has posted and I will explain why at length; however, he presented his opinion in an articulate and logical manner and for that I'm giving him a THUMBS UP.

Regarding Midland and lawsuits for annuities sales (or any other complaints related to their business practice) I think it's extremely important to keep things in perspective.

Regarding the most recent lawsuit in CA, the alleged $31 million in damages totals roughly 1.2% of the total annuity premiums Midland collected in 2013 alone.

While those figures might be important to an actuary I don't think that a CONSUMER is going to be persuaded by them. The optics are that Midland National Life has perpetual legal problems. Most won't care why and simply be afraid of them out of ignorance. Others might drill down into the facts and decide that pushing the limits of the law is Midland national's business model. Neither of those scenarios is going to engender trust in Midland National by a prospect, and they may begin to question the credibility of the agent for offering it.

Googling as MNLU has suggested provides numerous web sites covering the same lawsuit in California. The number of web sites covering the same issue does not make it any more or less of a significant event, and given the size of the lawsuit and the fact that is achieved class action status, there would be no wonder that several law reporting web sites would publish content on this subject.

You are factually correct, but I would again point out that the optics are not reassuring and that a fearful or confused consumer is going to question Midland National Life, if not the agent.

Attempts to find real consumer complaints found three web site:

Complaints Board - where someone who used to operate a web site called Midland Life Reviews carried on a short back and forth about alleged problems at Midland.

RipOff Report - where a consumer showed up to complain about being sold an indexed annuity issued by Midland, but seemed to have more problems with the agent who sold it.

Pissedconsumer - where there were 18 complaints. Using 2013 as an example again, Midland issued 36,468 life insurance contracts. Now, Midland issues more annuity contracts than life insurance contract, but I don't have the specific number of annuity contracts issued in 2013 handy. These 18 complains would equal 0.05% of all life insurance contracts issued in 2013. Just to give some scale to the number of complaints.

But not all of these complaints are actual complaints about Midland. One is a complaint about Midland Funding, LLC (a debt collection agency) and another is a lengthy diatribe from a life insurance agent that is very similar in tone to the discussion above.

Complaints.com is the fourth of the set.

Pissedconsumer has 16 (out of 18) legitimate complaints about Midland National. They go back to almost the day the website was created and show a pattern of bad behavior. Statistically, they're only a fraction of the complaints Midland national gets. You would think that Midland's management - which contracts a firm to monitor these sites - would count their internal and external complaints and correct their business practices to AVOID these consistent unforced errors. The fact that they haven't shows, in my opinion, an arrogance and disdain for the consumer and the agents they count on to sell their products.

The three sites you listed have multiple negative reviews about Midland National that go back to the creation of the sites.

Look at Yelp. That's a service that ADMITS it puts the best reviews at the top and the picture there is ugly.

Again, the OPTICS are what the consumer is going to focus on.

If an agent is negative impacted by such events because he or she was involved in the problem that led to lawsuit, it should come to that agent as no surprise that he or she might face negative consequences as a result.

The question is whether the few extra commission dollars are worth the risk of another agent coming in behind them and showing the consumer the Midland National Life optics.

As others have already commented within this discussion, several companies have faced lawsuits for various business practices. Additionally, every financial services related company faces multiple fines every year. It's the cost of doing business.

Sorry for beating a dead horse but OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS!

With so many agents invested in Midland National or North American I'm impressed at the civil and professional tone this thread has maintained.

 

[scagnt83]

You are factually correct, but I would again point out that the optics are not reassuring and that a fearful or confused consumer is going to question Midland National Life, if not the agent.

.......

Sorry for beating a dead horse but OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS!

I sell Midland and have had clients google them a few times. And when you go through the complaints with the client and explain the situation most clients are smart enough to know that most of the complaints are about bad agents and not the company. Most also realize that every financial company gets complaints and lawsuits.

I have had maybe 7 or 8 ask me about online reviews. Only 1 opted to go with a different carrier, but it was more for UW reasons than the online complaints.

I even had an agent come behind me and try to scare monger my client into cancelling their policy and going with a different carrier. After I had a rational and logical discussion with them about the validity of those complaints... and asked if they feel ok with doing business with an agent who uses scare tactics to drum up business... they stayed with me and now are the owner of 3 more Midland policies. They have even dealt with customer service a time or two when I was on vacation. They told me that it was by far the easiest & most pleasant experience they have ever had when dealing with an insurance companies customer service center.

 

[MNLU]

The most recent lawsuit in CA was nothing more than a grey area in the CA insurance code. Basically the policies sold (association policies) violated the 10/10 rule in CA... but the policy Situs was in another state that did not have the 10/10 regs. CA claimed they could not do that.

OK, just for argument's sake let's say that Midland National misunderstood the regs, this was the THIRD time they got nailed in California in ten years. Wouldn't any RESPONSIBLE company have shown more caution in complying with the rules?

Prospects don't care about technicalities. They see bad things about a company and they have doubts. It really is all about the optics.

The biggest online complaint about Midland is from an agent, and not from consumers. I wonder if that agent is MNLU??? lol. jk (unless you are the guy who runs the midland national review site...)

Here is a response from an agent about this guy:

The original report was authored by Eric , who has brought numerous lawsuits against Midland National Life. In 1991 he was a disgrunteled agent who decided to take an employee hostage at the Midland National home office and went to prison for the crime. He owns and operates the web site midland-national-review.com and has posted the same false accusations on every other web site including this one. The man is a kook and a convicted criminal. He has never proved any of the accusations about Midland National. His latest April of 2010 lawasuit is nothing more than an attempt to extort money from Midland National.

That's probably referring to Eric Castaneira. What that post could not have included at that time was that late last year Midland National got caught by a former federal prosecutor appointed by a federal judge to investigate his claims against Midland. The prosecutor's report and follow up pleadings are now part of the court file and they cite Midland National defrauding the court and using intimidation against Castaneira.

Midland basically admitted that their claims against Castaneira had been made up and invoked their right to remain silent about the criminal stuff. This is about one year after Robert TeKolste, President Shared Services at Midland National Life, submitted an affidavit in the case that said

“Contrary to Eric Castaneira's repeated statements on the internet, in blast emails, and to this Court, Midland has repeatedly advised Mr. Castaneira in writing that there is no basis for his intentionally false assertions that the company poses a threat of physical harm to Mr. Castaneira, his friends, or his family.”​

To change your legal position from that statement to saying nothing after the prosecutor's report tells its own story.

Go to Complaints.com and search Midland National Life.

Most consumer complaints I have found are clients upset at agents.

That's true, but it doesn't change that fact that Midland could have worked with these policy holders to AVOID the complaints and saved the rest of their agents from having to explain all of those complaints.

Midland has no more lawsuits than Anico, NYL, MM, NWM, LFG, Allianz, AG, ING, Guardian, Met, Pru, etc, etc.

I'd be interested in seeing some hard stats on that.

If an agent refused to do business with any company that has been involved in a lawsuit they would do no business at all.

Agreed, but there are other factors to consider; too.

With the SSA issue, Midland was hardly the only company to have that issue. Prudential and Met were both slapped on the wrist for that as well.

Again, with their previous record which Midland National senior manager decided they should push the limit of the law one more time? Didn't they consider it would be one more thing that their agents would have to try to explain away to the prospect?

----------

----------

I sell Midland

If that's what works for you, great.

What I'm trying to do is show the inverse of all the bright, shiny, happy BS that Midland National Life puts out to agents that don't know them.

If you were to start a thread about American National Life or Farmers Insurance, or American Income Life or AIG I would have some compelling information about them, too.

 

[scagnt83]

If that's what works for you, great.

What I'm trying to do is show the inverse of all the bright, shiny, happy BS that Midland National Life puts out to agents that don't know them.

If you were to start a thread about American National Life or Farmers Insurance, or American Income Life or AIG I would have some compelling information about them, too.

Why dont you quote the whole post and respond to the whole thing instead of selectively quoting?

It is clear that you have a vendetta against MNL... every post you have made on this forum is about them and how bad they are. Your bias is very clear. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum then try contributing some info other than just bashing a single company that is very well respected among agents. If they did you wrong personally then tell your story and we might be sympathetic. But bashing a very well respected carrier with these claims which happen to all insurance carriers is getting very old. When you show me something that is not common among the whole industry then you will have my attention.


And if you dont think those other companies I mentioned have had lawsuits then you need to do your own research.

As far as making it right with those consumers; who said they didnt? People still complain even if the wrong has been righted.

With the recent CA issue, there was nothing in the state laws that explicitly prohibited what they did. The whole issue came about because of bad agents... but of course the carrier has much deeper pockets...

 

[BNTRS]

First, I don't agree with much of what BNTRS has posted and I will explain why at length; however, he presented his opinion in an articulate and logical manner and for that I'm giving him a THUMBS UP.


While those figures might be important to an actuary I don't think that a CONSUMER is going to be persuaded by them. The optics are that Midland National Life has perpetual legal problems. Most won't care why and simply be afraid of them out of ignorance. Others might drill down into the facts and decide that pushing the limits of the law is Midland national's business model. Neither of those scenarios is going to engender trust in Midland National by a prospect, and they may begin to question the credibility of the agent for offering it.


You are factually correct, but I would again point out that the optics are not reassuring and that a fearful or confused consumer is going to question Midland National Life, if not the agent.


Complaints.com is the fourth of the set.

Pissedconsumer has 16 (out of 18) legitimate complaints about Midland National. They go back to almost the day the website was created and show a pattern of bad behavior. Statistically, they're only a fraction of the complaints Midland national gets. You would think that Midland's management - which contracts a firm to monitor these sites - would count their internal and external complaints and correct their business practices to AVOID these consistent unforced errors. The fact that they haven't shows, in my opinion, an arrogance and disdain for the consumer and the agents they count on to sell their products.

The three sites you listed have multiple negative reviews about Midland National that go back to the creation of the sites.

Look at Yelp. That's a service that ADMITS it puts the best reviews at the top and the picture there is ugly.

Again, the OPTICS are what the consumer is going to focus on.


The question is whether the few extra commission dollars are worth the risk of another agent coming in behind them and showing the consumer the Midland National Life optics.


Sorry for beating a dead horse but OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS!

With so many agents invested in Midland National or North American I'm impressed at the civil and professional tone this thread has maintained.

I in no way intended to ignore the fact that any negative press can be problematic from an image point of view. Perhaps we have a different viewing angle on the matter.

I'm not the ripest tomato on this vine (for sure) but even I've come to understand that in life (and business) you are going to make booboo's and probably get your hand slapped a couple of times for it.

The question isn't if but when and then how badly.

In the grand scheme of things, Midland has many many more happy clients and agents than it does upset ones. It couldn't continue to be a going concern if this wasn't the case.

So while your point about the image (or optics as you put it) issue is well taken, I think it might be a tad overstated. There is certainly no doubt that some people will be scared off when noticing that a company faced lawsuits and this, that, or the other thing. If that truly chases them away, their loss.

 

[MNLU]

I in no way intended to ignore the fact that any negative press can be problematic from an image point of view. Perhaps we have a different viewing angle on the matter.

I'm not the ripest tomato on this vine (for sure) but even I've come to understand that in life (and business) you are going to make booboo's and probably get your hand slapped a couple of times for it.

The question isn't if by when and then how bad.

In the grand scheme of things, Midland has many many more happy clients and agents than it does upset ones. It couldn't continue to be a going concern if this wasn't the case.

So while your point about the image (or optics as you put it) issue is well taken, I think it might be a tad overstated. There is certainly no doubt that some people will be scared off when noticing that a company faced lawsuits and this, that, or the other thing. If that truly chases them away, their loss.

You offer valid points and reasonable logic. I would agree that we are using different filters in developing our POV.

What I have tried to point out (perhaps not as articulately as I would prefer) is that agents are free to do business with any company that will contract with them; however, it's in the AGENT'S best interest to have a clear picture of how his/her prospect will see that company AND whether he/she can trust the company to be fair with him/her.

IMO the facts say that Midland National Life is NOT strong on either of those areas. When I started in the life insurance business right after the Civil War the internet didn't exist so about the only way you could evaluate whether you wanted to do business with a life insurance company was A M Best and other agents' word of mouth.

The majority of regulatory, consumer, and agent complaints about Midland are not addressed in a company rating. Yes, Midland National makes money and they have a good rating, but that means little to a policy holder that can't get their money out of a policy, a beneficiary that can't get paid on a claim, or an agent that is bankrupted and/or blackballed from the life insurance industry because Midland National demanded a commission charge back that the agent can't cover.

Midland National is also aggressive about requiring a non-disclosure agreement from an agent after they leave them for road kill. It's hard to get a balanced view of a company that covers up their agent disputes.

If an agent is aware of the potential risks and wants to do business with a company, it's their choice; however, it's only fair that they see the WHOLE picture when they make that choice.

I would like to point out one more thing - WHAT does a prospect REALLY buy from a life insurance agent? I would argue that it's a PROMISE based upon TRUST in that agent, and by extension the life insurance company the agent recommends.

What the AGENT thinks is best for the client may not be what the CLIENT agrees with. Since the client is the one writing the first check and each one after that that the only opinion or perception that counts is the client's. What might be trivial to the agent is a deal breaker for the client. Even if the agent overcomes a concern about a life insurance company while they're in the home the client might have nagging doubts and look to others for advice. The end result could be a lapse or a lot of conservation work that eats into the agent's sales time. If that happens any more than infrequently it's not a profitable business model.

Life insurance companies are NOT benevolent entities. They are self-centered profit makers that place THEIR interests FIRST. That being said any life insurance company that willfully commits acts over and over again that MIGHT cause doubts in the minds of consumers and agents IMO should be considered risky to do business with.

 

[scagnt83]

, but that means little to a policy holder that can't get their money out of a policy, a beneficiary that can't get paid on a claim, or an agent that is bankrupted and/or blackballed from the life insurance industry because Midland National demanded a commission charge back that the agent can't cover.

This is a totally baseless insinuation. Show me where Midland has failed to pay on a valid claim or a policyholder has not been able to access funds by the terms of the contract.

Chargebacks can be paid off on payment plans. I have never heard of a carrier not allowing an agent to do so. And I have never heard of an agent being put on vector while paying off an agreed upon payment plan. If I am wrong please correct me by providing real life examples.

And show us an instance where Midland chargedback an agent in violation of their contract...


Judging from your posts I would guess you got caught up in the whole CA annuity fiasco where they rescinded the contracts. Every carrier I know of does chargebacks in the event of rescission. It is hardly exclusive to Midland.

Stop spreading misleading accusations and trying to scaremonger.

 

[VolAgent]

This is a totally baseless insinuation. Show me where Midland has failed to pay on a valid claim or a policyholder has not been able to access funds by the terms of the contract.

Chargebacks can be paid off on payment plans. I have never heard of a carrier not allowing an agent to do so. And I have never heard of an agent being put on vector while paying off an agreed upon payment plan. If I am wrong please correct me by providing real life examples.

And show us an instance where Midland chargedback an agent in violation of their contract...


Judging from your posts I would guess you got caught up in the whole CA annuity fiasco where they rescinded the contracts. Every carrier I know of does chargebacks in the event of rescission. It is hardly exclusive to Midland.

Stop spreading misleading accusations and trying to scaremonger.

His point, and I would agree with: Why is an agent being charged back on a policy rescinded because Midland violated the rules? The agent is being punished for Midland's bad behavior.

That alone would give me pause on doing business with Midland in any product I thought even looked at the rules, much less pushed them.

 

[scagnt83]

His point, and I would agree with: Why is an agent being charged back on a policy rescinded because Midland violated the rules? The agent is being punished for Midland's bad behavior.

That alone would give me pause on doing business with Midland in any product I thought even looked at the rules, much less pushed them.

I agree that the situation stinks. But this was a very unique situation. Should Midland give the agents some sort of reprieve? Perhaps. Prorating the chargeback would seem fair. But many of the policies sold were over 10 year surrender contracts, so I dont know how much they would really be prorated...

But lets keep this in context. These were association policies being sold in CA with a Situs in another state. Considering all the fuss CA has made over Surrender charges, these agents should have known selling Surrenders over 10 years was a risk if they were sold to residents of CA.

But to be fair, Midland was not violating any written law. This was an arbitrary judgement made by the CA DOI Commissioner. It was a retroactive after the fact ruling that had no basis in the laws written at that time.

Should Midland have worked with the agents? Yes. Did they? I have no clue.
But those agents should have known there was heightened risk to selling policies in CA with a Situs in another state. Right wrong or otherwise, CA is the way it is and it is no secret.

But to make it sound like Midland knowingly violated the law or was unfair to the clients is totally baseless. And agents get screwed by carriers all the time. Anico screwed me on a big case once... Im not out there bashing them with every post I make. NYL had a class action filed against them by agents, but I wouldnt hesitate to say they are an excellent company for both clients and agents.

And for MNLU to insinuate that Midland has not paid claims or allowed access to funds is nothing but scaremongering and is an outright lie.