NLG Lawsuit

Every excessive fee claim here is bogus, 50 state insurance regulators approved the product for sale separately with fee schedule used in the sale Now if they can find a case where a senior took out a reverse mortgage and bought IUL maybe. or some other suitability violation.
 
walthamny said:
Every excessive fee claim here is bogus, 50 state insurance regulators approved the product for sale separately with fee schedule used in the sale Now if they can find a case where a senior took out a reverse mortgage and bought IUL maybe. or some other suitability violation.
Click to expand...

I would highly disagree. So would regulators.

Just because it is approved for sale in the state, does not mean it is suitable to sell to anyone and everyone.

Especially IUL, where the % based fee will vary drastically on what % of GLP the Policy is funded at.

A $100k IUL funded at 20% of GLP for "cash value" would be highly unsuitable and the agent should held accountable for that.

A $100k IUL funded at 100% of GLP for "cash value", would likely be suitable. Assuming Permanent Insurance is suitable in the first place.

I've seen IUL policies sold that absolutely warranted a lawsuit. Consumers lost tens of thousands and will never see significant cash value. This is very common and a huge issue in our industry.

Even with the policy being funded at 100% of GLP, you are still placing a HUGE amount of future risk on the client with IUL.

Internal Fees can usually be increased by 200%-300%. Caps can be reduced to 2% or 3%. It happened with traditional UL, and its already starting to happen now with IUL.
 
Last edited:
If you remember back to the Prudential and MetLife lawsuits on the UL products back in the 1980s or 1990s whenever that happened, what hung them was enough people had the same story that the agents were referring to it as the same thing as whole life. They replacing whole life policies in many cases and telling people these were new policies that were the same thing but with lower premiums.
Of course, UL is not the same thing as Whole-Life and won't perform the same way that that whole life will.
They paid out very large settlements over that.
 
Last edited:
Newby said:
If you remember back to the Prudential and MetLife lawsuits on the UL products back in the 1980s or 1990s whenever that happened, what hung them was enough people had the same story that the agents were referring to it as the same thing as whole life. They replacing whole life policies in many cases and telling people these were new policies that were the same thing but with lower premiums.
Of course, UL is not the same thing as Whole-Life and won't perform the same way that that whole life will.
They paid out very large settlements over that.
Click to expand...

I hear that a lot these days about IUL. "Its like WL but so much better"

When internal expenses double and return potential is decreased by 80%.... literally any WL would have been better.
 
walthamny said:
Every excessive fee claim here is bogus, 50 state insurance regulators approved the product for sale separately with fee schedule used in the sale Now if they can find a case where a senior took out a reverse mortgage and bought IUL maybe. or some other suitability violation.
Click to expand...
Normally agree with this thought process. But seeing some young parents that make $50k per year spend $5,000 a year on an IUL when they dont have emergency fund nor 401k because the IUL was sold at minimum funding for commissions because it was "tax free, max borrow, pay for nursing home bills, plus, plus, plus", some of these lawsuits are warranted for the sale practices of producers & uplines even if the product design wasnt inherently bad
 
The Suitability Process would not exist if state approval meant it was suitable for anyone and everyone.

All state approval means, is that it could possibly be suitable for some people in certain circumstances.

That would be like saying any mutual fund is suitable for a person just because the SEC has approved it. Not even close.

And IUL has the whole layer of "design", highly impacting the fee structure of the premium, that normal investments do not have. It is probably the most abused and mis-sold insurance product in the history of insurance.
 
If you read the lawyer claims all IUL are assumed to be high fees and unsuitable. That is a bogus claim. I am not arguing all Mutual funds and ETF sales are high fees. Now they can sue for individual circumstances as you all described. Product was approved by regulators and they were unsuitable for sale to some of the lawyer clients. YEs they should sue the insurance company and the agent and the IMO. I dont sell many IUL's and I have to admit I have not run into an IUL sale that I found in the best interest of client. They always come to me for rescue the IUL situations. On the hand, I have run into whole life policies that are fine and I advise clients to keep them as is. May be one day I will run into an IUL properly funded and good for the client.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top