STERLING INVESTORS Replacement Chargeback Letter.

G.Gordon · 10-30-2009, 01:19 PM

Just got this letter:

Dr Gordon

We have received a signed requesto to cancel the referenced policy.

In an attempt to conserve the policy, we have sent a letter to the insured. We would also like for you to attempt to conserve this policy. We will pend for 14 days.

Your agent contract stupulates, if you initiate replacement of one of your policies you will be charged $250. Therefore if this policy is not conserved we will charge the $250 to your account balance.

WELL AIMC... LET'S SEE YOU TRY. YOU BETTER READ MY CONTRACT. WHILE YOU MAY HAVE SNUCK THIS CLAUSE IN SOME CONTRACTS IT IS NOT IN MINE.

"WHAT IS THIS CRAP? SOMEONE BETTER READ MY CONTRACT AND GET BACK TO ME BEFORE I CONTACT THE DOI AND MY ATTORNEY."

I FAXED THAT OVER TO THEM WRITTEN ON THE LETTER I GOT FROM THEM.

The funny thing is their daughter-in-law is the one that called me as soon as they got the rate increase letter. "This is too much... what can we do."

Yoda · 10-30-2009, 04:00 PM

GORDON SAID- "Just got this letter:

Dr Gordon

We have received a signed requesto to cancel the referenced policy.

In an attempt to conserve the policy, we have sent a letter to the insured. We would also like for you to attempt to conserve this policy. We will pend for 14 days.
================================================

Your going to be fine Gordon.......some agent just told me in here the other day that he has never been ripped off by an insurance company in 16 years and that nobody ever gets ripped off.

Its letters that like that letter you got there that are going to keep me from switching a Mutual of Omaha supp to a Gerber supp.....That relationship between Mutual of Omaha and Gerber is a little too incestuous for me.........like grandpa always said "you mess with the bull you get the horns"........

G.Gordon · 10-30-2009, 04:33 PM

But... it's not in my contract. If there is nothing in your MOO contract then switching someone from one to another is not an issue.

retread · 10-30-2009, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by G.Gordon

Just got this letter:

Dr Gordon

We have received a signed requesto to cancel the referenced policy.

In an attempt to conserve the policy, we have sent a letter to the insured. We would also like for you to attempt to conserve this policy. We will pend for 14 days.

Your agent contract stupulates, if you initiate replacement of one of your policies you will be charged $250. Therefore if this policy is not conserved we will charge the $250 to your account balance.

WELL AIMC... LET'S SEE YOU TRY. YOU BETTER READ MY CONTRACT. WHILE YOU MAY HAVE SNUCK THIS CLAUSE IN SOME CONTRACTS IT IS NOT IN MINE.

"WHAT IS THIS CRAP? SOMEONE BETTER READ MY CONTRACT AND GET BACK TO ME BEFORE I CONTACT THE DOI AND MY ATTORNEY."

I FAXED THAT OVER TO THEM WRITTEN ON THE LETTER I GOT FROM THEM.

The funny thing is their daughter-in-law is the one that called me as soon as they got the rate increase letter. "This is too much... what can we do."

Yeah.... I just got out my contract with AIMC for SILIC, and under Compensation & Accounting, 1.(d), it says...

"A $250 fee will be charged to Your commission account per occurence, if You initiate a replacement or surrender of an in force Sterling Investors Life Insurance Company policy."

Now I didn't have a problem with that, thinking it is only right to keep agents from churning, but I never conceived of them acting in this regard under your circumstances. This gives me pause to think. Perhaps I will not sell SILIC any more....

policy doctor · 10-30-2009, 07:14 PM

That's because the owners of Sterling Investors and AIMC are the same.

Bet you didn't know that.

G.Gordon · 10-30-2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by policy doctor

That's because the owners of Sterling Investors and AIMC are the same.

Bet you didn't know that.

Yep. I've met Mark Wait and the whole crew. Slime IMO.

Bottom line for them to mail this letter on a case that wasn't initiated by me, and to me, an agent without that clause in his contract shows how mis-managed they are. I called SMS and Joan and along with Dave McNerney are also in arms and defending agents against this type of BS. They know that they will be grouped in with this type of dirtbaged action.

Here's some legal FYI. Read the contract with any company that says this. The clause that protects you against this type of action is: "This agreement may be canceled by either party at any time."

And:

Then look at the vesting provision...

Basically if you cancel a contract with someone like Sterling or Admiral when they are too high to sell and you're only getting renewal commissions then there is nothing they can do. They can't charge you back. By you canceling the "agreement" you remove the ability for them to charge back or withhold "any/all" comissions. According to the "vesting" provision they have to continue to pay the comission.

Check it out and let me know if you concur.

I've sent cancel request to both Admiral and Sterling. I'll not contract with anything AIMC has their fingers in from now on.

policy doctor · 10-30-2009, 07:39 PM

Too bad about Mark. Money must have turned his head. Although I know someone else who shares your feeling.

I thnk Anthony would be willing to help...but then, people change and i haven't talked with either in years.

Interesting fact about your contract and commission. I'm not with them. I know if you cancel your app't with DOI it will usually collapse that company contract.

Those weasel clauses in contracts will trip you up. I hate going thru fmo's instead direct with co for that reason....they are more treacherous.

MSIS stopped paying renewals abruptly....

G.Gordon · 10-30-2009, 08:02 PM

We need to get the word out about jerkoffs like AIMC. My office carries just under $1million in AP for MedSupps. That is off limits to them now. Keep lining up more and more agents/agencies that keep them at arm's length and maybe they'll get the message.

policy doctor · 10-30-2009, 08:09 PM

GG...have you been around long enough to remember when they were starting levelized commish on these supps?

I'm referring specifically to replacements. They(companies) were not going to pay renewal commission on a supp you replaced if it was the same plan, unless an increase in benefits in the new plan. They never enforced that.

That may be the next new wave to curb replacement.

Just suspiciously thinking.

retread · 10-30-2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by policy doctor

That's because the owners of Sterling Investors and AIMC are the same.

Bet you didn't know that.

No, really, I didn't. I knew both AIMC and SILIC shared the same address in Rome, GA, but thought SILIC set up AIMC as their main distribution channel.

After looking up a little info on Michael White, I came across an article on him committing to a big contract with PTNA several years back. Now I know why Dan McNerny pushed those of us in his downline to sell PTNA. I brought the financial weakness of PTNA to Dan's attention about a year before they folded, but he ignored me. With the close relationship he has with AIMC it now occurs to me why he ignored my warnings.

Things eventually come to light.

G.Gordon · 10-31-2009, 08:45 AM

Looks like Dan is nothing more than a politician type guy now. Do anything as long as it puts money in his pocket or someone he's in bed with.

SMS basically did the same thing when I brought up the NR rating of Admiral saying "... look at the 15% increase in less than a year..." If you keep bringing out companies like that you'll lose agents confidence.

"Well they're reinsured by Mutual of Omaha... "

That's all they had to say.

I'm about done with them. I'm just sorry my Mutual of Omaha contract is with them now. Oh well. That's the last contract they'll see my name on.

arnguy · 10-31-2009, 01:45 PM

I hope that "sellout123" reads this thread because you Gordon are addressed as "Dr Gordon." I believe there are several other agents on this forum who have doctorates.

retread · 10-31-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by retread

Yeah.... I just got out my contract with AIMC for SILIC, and under Compensation & Accounting, 1.(d), it says...
"A $250 fee will be charged to Your commission account per occurence, if You initiate a replacement or surrender of an in force Sterling Investors Life Insurance Company policy."
Now I didn't have a problem with that, thinking it is only right to keep agents from churning, but I never conceived of them acting in this regard under your circumstances. This gives me pause to think. Perhaps I will not sell SILIC any more....

The more I think about this, the more upset I get. It is obvious that I can't sell to anyone who is already on a SILIC Med Sup or else face a $250 chargeback under the terms of my contract. It never occurred to me before.... Here in MO, where people have the right to change policies annually, and rate increases are abounding, I will have to refer anyone covered with SILIC to another agent who doesn't carry them. This is not right. "Hello, may I help you? Yes, I hear your complaint. Rates are going up precipitously... What carrier are you presently with? Sterling Investors? Sorry, I can't help you... call someone else."

Not to mention that I will have to hand off my own SILIC customers who demand a change when increases get too high for them to another agent!

I am going over all my contracts again. All contracts that have terms like this will be cancelled. I have been attempting to go direct on all my products for the last several years. This is just one more reason to dump FMOs.

Right now I am not very happy with SMS... I am sure Dan knows about this clause in AIMCs contract, and just shoved it off on me without a word of warning. I was just about to contact him about picking up another product, but not now.

G.Gordon · 10-31-2009, 04:04 PM

Retread,

Read my earlier post. If you cancel your contract first they can't come after you. If your clients tell them "None of your business" when they call to find out how/why they changed they can't come after you. The burden of proof is on them to prove you initiated the change over. Who's side will your clients be on? The company that increased the premiums or the agent that constantly helps them save money.

retread · 10-31-2009, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by G.Gordon

Retread,

Read my earlier post. If you cancel your contract first they can't come after you. If your clients tell them "None of your business" when they call to find out how/why they changed they can't come after you. The burden of proof is on them to prove you initiated the change over. Who's side will your clients be on? The company that increased the premiums or the agent that constantly helps them save money.

There is no point in shooting myself in the foot. If I cancel my contract, I lose my renewals. I'll just let them run out and in the meantime sell other products.

jacobtn · 10-31-2009, 04:33 PM

Is this a friend of yours Gordon?

padthaiforlunch · 10-31-2009, 11:18 PM

I just got/read my contract with them on Friday and I saw this bs. The are competitively priced in Colorado, but I can't see placing any business with them.

I don't know if there's a way to contract with Sterling without uisng AIMC, but now I'll have to go back and make sure Ritter didn't run my Family contract through AIMC.

G.Gordon · 11-01-2009, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by retread

There is no point in shooting myself in the foot. If I cancel my contract, I lose my renewals. I'll just let them run out and in the meantime sell other products.

Nope. The vested commisions keep getting paid if you cancel the contract. The only reason they keep your commission is if they "terminate for cause"... don't let that happen. Beat them to the punch.

When the contract is "canceled" by you per provisions of the contract they can't excercise any other provisions of said contract.

retread · 11-01-2009, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by G.Gordon

Nope. The vested commisions keep getting paid if you cancel the contract. The only reason they keep your commission is if they "terminate for cause"... don't let that happen. Beat them to the punch.

When the contract is "canceled" by you per provisions of the contract they can't excercise any other provisions of said contract.

I'll certainly run this by my attorney and see what he says. You may be right. If so, you better believe I will terminate.

BTW... my MOO contract is through SMS/AIMC, too. I am prepared to terminate this one also, even though I don't see any onerous provisions in the contract (at least the one disclosed to me) that I see. Problem is, those pesky NON-DISCLOSED agreements between FMOs is what disgusts me.

G.Gordon · 11-02-2009, 06:20 AM

Good luck getting out of your Mutual of Omaha tie to AIMC. I tried and it was impossible. The only way is go one year without production. That's near impossible in my market. I don't mind MOO being with them. The clause in question is a "Sterling/Admiral" clause and is not in MOO's papers. I've never had issues with MOO, but these rinky dink jokers mentioned do nothing but muddy the waters.