|
Posted by Don on October 3, 2007, 4:42 pm
> The primary difficulty is PROVING that the salesman made an error.
> It is usually a case of "he said, I said" without proof. If you have a
> witness
> who could testify as to what was actually said, you would possibly have
> a good shot at getting your money back. Without some offer of PROOF,
> I am afraid that the company would not accept YOUR word.
In a situation like this, it is not apparent that the annuitant would have
any ulterior motive for wanting to cancel the contract, especially if there
was only a short time between the sale and the decision to cancel. On the
face of it, he did not understand what he was signing and later discovered
that it was not what he wanted. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine
that the salesman could have deliberately misled the customer in order to
make a sale. In such a situation, it seems that the burden of proof properly
should lie with the salesman, not the consumer. Good, honest companies in
many retail areas have a policy of “complete satisfaction or your money
back.” Why not the same with insurance sales?
|
|
Posted by kastnna on October 3, 2007, 6:19 pm
> Good, honest companies in many retail areas have a policy of "complete
satisfaction or your money
> back." Why not the same with insurance sales?
Maybe not everyone thinks companies should have that policy.
Corporations with those "guarantees" assign a cost value to having
that policy and incorporate it into thier budget/bottomline. As a
result they charge slightly more for their products to account for
this added cost. I would rather place the burden of education upon the
consumer and get cheaper goods (the free lunch theory strike again).
The next time some dimwit in front of you a Target is returning a
toaster becuase he didn't read the box, realize that he is literally
costing YOU money.
[Just my $0.02 and I apologize to the mods for the lack of financial
planning specificity]
|
|
Posted by Don on October 3, 2007, 6:54 pm
> Corporations with those "guarantees" assign a cost value to having
> that policy and incorporate it into thier budget/bottomline. As a
> result they charge slightly more for their products to account for
> this added cost. I would rather place the burden of education upon the
> consumer and get cheaper goods (the free lunch theory strike again).
I wouldn't. I would prefer to pay a few cents more for the goods with the
knowledge that, if the product did not work as I hoped, I would be able to
take it back and get the right product or my money back. This concept is
sort of like what is usually called "insurance."
|
|
Posted by Cal on October 3, 2007, 6:57 pm
: quoted-printable
=20
> In a situation like this, it is not apparent that the annuitant would =
have=20
> any ulterior motive for wanting to cancel the contract, especially if =
there=20
> was only a short time between the sale and the decision to cancel. On =
the=20
> face of it, he did not understand what he was signing and later =
discovered=20
> that it was not what he wanted. On the other hand, it is easy to =
imagine=20
> that the salesman could have deliberately misled the customer in order =
to=20
> make a sale.=20
The "hook" in the above advice is in the use of the word =
"COULD"
(the italics are mine)
in such a situation, it seems that the burden of proof properly=20
> should lie with the salesman, not the consumer.=20
Same here, "should". This would assume that the insurance
company is in business to be of "help" to the insureds. That
is NOT the case. The ONE SUPREME OBLIGATION of the
company is to it's stockholders. That is an obligation to =
earn
a PROFIT. There is no obligation to be nice to the insured.
Good, honest companies in many retail areas have a policy of =93complete =
satisfaction or your money back.=94 Why not the same with insurance =
sales?=20
Because the Insurance Industry is NOT in the retail area. =
They
provide a service, which has to be paid for, so that the =
stockholders
can be ASSURED of a profit.
Cal Lester CLU
------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C805EF.31F87BF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> <BR>> In a situation like this, it is =
not=20
apparent that the annuitant would have <BR>> any ulterior motive for =
wanting=20
to cancel the contract, especially if there <BR>> was only a short =
time=20
between the sale and the decision to cancel. On the <BR>> face =
of it,=20
he did not understand what he was signing and later discovered <BR>> =
that it=20
was not what he wanted. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine =
<BR>> that=20
the salesman <STRONG><EM><U><FONT color=3D#ff0000>could=20
</FONT></U></EM></STRONG>have deliberately misled the customer in order =
to=20
<BR>> make a sale. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
The=20
"hook" in the above advice is in the use of the word =
"COULD"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
(the=20
italics are mine)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>in such a situation, it seems that the burden of =
proof=20
properly <BR>> <STRONG><EM><U><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>should</FONT></U></EM></STRONG> lie with the salesman, =
not the=20
consumer. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
Same=20
here, "should". This would assume that the insurance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
company is in business to be of "help" to the insureds. =
That</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
is=20
<STRONG>NOT</STRONG> the case. The <STRONG><U>ONE SUPREME=20
OBLIGATION</U></STRONG> of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
company is to it's stockholders. That is an obligation to =
earn</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
a=20
PROFIT. There is no obligation to be nice to the insured.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Good, honest companies in many retail areas =
have a policy=20
of =93complete satisfaction or your money back.=94 Why not the same =
with=20
insurance sales? <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
Because the Insurance Industry is NOT in the retail area. =
They</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
provide a service, which has to be paid for, so that the=20
stockholders</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
can=20
be <STRONG>ASSURED</STRONG> of a profit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Cal Lester CLU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
|
|
Posted by Don on October 3, 2007, 7:21 pm
: quoted-printable
Quite true, yet numerous companies involved in financial services like =
to pretend they are first and foremost concerned with their clients' =
best interests in the same way that a professional such as a doctor =
might have an obligation to be nice to a patient.
=20
Same here, "should". This would assume that the insurance
company is in business to be of "help" to the insureds. =
That
is NOT the case. The ONE SUPREME OBLIGATION of the
company is to it's stockholders. That is an obligation to =
earn
a PROFIT. There is no obligation to be nice to the insured.
------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C805D9.7080CAF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Quite true, yet numerous companies involved in financial services =
like to=20
pretend they are first and foremost concerned with their =
clients' best=20
interests in the same way that a professional such as a doctor might =
have an=20
obligation to be nice to a patient.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Cal" <<A=20
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
eLXg5nanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
=
size=3D4> &nbs=
p; Same=20
here, "should". This would assume that the insurance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
company is in business to be of "help" to the insureds. =
That</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
is=20
<STRONG>NOT</STRONG> the case. The <STRONG><U>ONE SUPREME=20
OBLIGATION</U></STRONG> of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
=20
company is to it's stockholders. That is an obligation to =
earn</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4> =
a=20
PROFIT. There is no obligation to be nice to the=20
insured.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | 401 (k) early withdrawal penalty calculation | November 8, 2006, 12:43 pm |
| IRA penalty and taxes | January 4, 2007, 4:59 am |
| Early retirement | September 4, 2008, 10:04 am |
| GM Bonds Coming Due in Early 2009 | October 31, 2008, 5:39 pm |
| How many "extra" percent must be added to 4% for (very) early retirement? | January 8, 2008, 7:05 pm |
| Social Security Earnings Test In Early Retirement | July 13, 2007, 12:20 pm |
| Annuity Help | January 6, 2008, 8:13 am |
| Put 401K into an Annuity? | November 21, 2006, 9:53 am |
| NQ annuity withdrawal | February 19, 2008, 5:07 pm |
| Variable Annuity Questions | March 5, 2007, 4:51 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap