MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
JUNE 24, 2004
2. Agent 880-2 District L56 The following applications were written as the result of the insured taking reduced paid up policies for their original insurance contracts and there was no signed statement the insured knew existing insurance was being replaced: Policy No 999151334A 999251709E1 Insurance Amount $750,000 $750,000
The failure to notify the replaced company of the intended replacement is a violation of COMAR 31.09.05.07B(2) which requires that within 3 working days of the date the application is received in the replacing insurer’s home office, a written communication be sent to the existing insurer.
The examiners reviewed as a separate entity, policies written by Agent 880-2 on one senior citizen, age 78, (Policy 200160029A and others) whose children determined that the products sold to her were neither appropriate, nor cost effective. Further the products were not adequate for investments, and did not meet the insured’s financial requirements.
After reviewing all applicable data, inclusive of applications, projections and allegations that the products were inappropriate, the Company only as an accommodation to the insured and the MIA agreed to refund all premiums and deposits.
3. Agent 822-2 District A66 The Company database showed the agent replaced 13 policies.
Policy No. 997001984A
Date of Application
[Replaced AllState / no replacement form]
The transaction is a violation of COMAR 31.09.05.07B(2) which requires that within 3 working days of the date the application is received in the home office notification be sent to the replaced insurer advising of the proposed replacement.
MET LIFE REPORT NO. 786-01