Approved but....

[Willie2358]

Yes, it is better to have protection, but they don't always see it that way.

And by blaming others, I am referring to where you discussed their health and the rating they got. It really came across like you are blaming the company versus accepting you may not have read the underwriting guide as well as you should have.

Nope not blaming anyone the carrier comes back with what they comeback with I'm good with it. I was laying background information so that anyone that had any ideas had more information on ways to get in touch with her or what the best course of action would be if they had a situation similar.

 

[VolAgent]

Nope not blaming anyone the carrier comes back with what they comeback with I'm good with it. I was laying background information so that anyone that had any ideas had more information on ways to get in touch with her or what the best course of action would be if they had a situation similar.

Gotcha, just sharing how it came across to me.

At this point, I'd just move on and find more and better business. I doubt it will stick even if you can get a premium payment out of them. I definitely would not authorize the carrier to draft without something in writing from them. He needs to sign the delivery requirements.

 

[LostDollar]

Oh, let me add this extremely important point: A license is NOT just "a license to sell". A license is a license to hold you accountable and liable for your actions, recommendations, and conduct. It certainly isn't about competence. It's about holding you accountable and liable.

That's pretty weak considering
a) Rick thinks insurance licenses are a government fund raising project.
and
b) a current discussion in another thread.

 

[DHK]

I don't have to explain myself or the FACTS to you.
1. You don't have licensing.
2. You don't have clients.
3. You don't have policyholders.
4. You, therefore, do not have professional liability to be concerned about - justified or otherwise.
5. Any "professional" who doesn't understand their liabilities in their business - particularly in a business where "risk transfer" is our JOB... just might not have their professional licenses for very long.

And as for what Rick "thinks"... doesn't concern me (unless he won the election for California Insurance Commissioner - which I did vote for him, but he obviously didn't win).

 

[Willie2358]

Didn't mean to start a hot debate but alas it's on to the next as I finally got in touch with her. I called her and was met with a "I can't do it right now".

 

[LostDollar]

Sorry you lost the sale. Best wishes for the next one.

 

[LostDollar]

I don't have to explain myself or the FACTS to you.
1. You don't have licensing.
2. You don't have clients.
3. You don't have policyholders.
4. You, therefore, do not have professional liability to be concerned about - justified or otherwise.
5. Any "professional" who doesn't understand their liabilities in their business - particularly in a business where "risk transfer" is our JOB... just might not have their professional licenses for very long.

And as for what Rick "thinks"... doesn't concern me (unless he won the election for California Insurance Commissioner - which I did vote for him, but he obviously didn't win).

Where I was trained up, ethics was/is a basic concern in relation to professional licensing. Personal ethics would be a precursor to both accountability and liability.

If ethics is not involved with insurance agent licensing, then that licensing is not quite the "holy grail" that it has been presented to me as being.

 

[DHK]

Ethics continuing education requirement

 

[DHK]

Where I was trained up, ethics was/is a basic concern in relation to professional licensing. Personal ethics would be a precursor to both accountability and liability.

If ethics is not involved with insurance agent licensing, then that licensing is not quite the "holy grail" that it has been presented to me as being.

Let me help you a bit: There are a lot of morons with licenses.

A license does not make a non-ethical person ethical.
A designation does not make a non-ethical person ethical.

All it does is point out that you are held to a professional standard... and when one violates the standard, it's more "teeth" in the legal charges.

You don't have to take MY word for it. Check out how this attorney - who prosecutes AGENTS AND ADVISORS uses these things against those accused of wrongdoing.

 

[DayTimer]

A license does not make a non-ethical person ethical.
A designation does not make a non-ethical person ethical.

So, it is kind of like being President?