How stupid, ignorant, unintelligent – a one of kind bully – for Industrial Alliance to have made these statements in regards to viatical settlements recently published in the Insurance Journal.
It is in French, but if you ask Industrial Alliance for a translation, maybe it will come out better in English. I am working on a News show based “The Simple Truth”. In this show, there is a segment called “Ring a ding Dumbass” which is based on the observation that in the old days, when a bell rang, it was because an angel got its wings. Now, when a bell rings, it’s because a dumbass got a promotion. This is a great way to review certain personalities working in the financial industry and I will gladly feature whoever released that statement at IA, as the dumbass of the month. When you get chosen, you’ll get a bell as an award so you can ring and ring it; so you can get promoted and promoted.
Basically if you act like a dumbass in a position of responsibility in the financial industry, I will publicly call you on it.
First let’s be precised. Contrary to what is stated a “viatical settlement” is not a life settlement. It is one kind of life settlement. That differentiation is important to avoid the release of stupid statements. What is a viatical settlement? Here is the definition: an arrangement whereby a person with a terminal illness sells their life insurance policy to a third party for less than its mature value, in order to benefit from the proceeds while alive.
NOW I “WANTS” TO KNOW!!!
Who is in the business to submit application on terminally ill people and which insurer is in the business of issuing policies on terminally ill people? I “WANTS” TO KNOW because I have tons of terminally ill people who want insurance coverage.
Unless the business of insurance has changed since my golden days, insurance is issued when you are insurable. This excludes terminally ill people. So therefore, logic dictates, a logic which seems to be above the brain capacity of anyone at Industrial Alliance, that to take advantage of a viatical settlement, you first have to be insurable; healthy enough to get the insurance. Following this wonderful logic, it seems that IA believes the healthy people will go out and catch a terminal illness just for the purpose of entering into a viatical settlement…
Sorry IA, you got it wrong. When you buy insurance, it is not because you are near death, but because you are afraid of what will happen financially at your death and because you care about those you love. Ten, fifteen, twenty… years down the road you are diagnosed with a terminal illness and you are told you have less than 2 years to live. Guess what? You never bought this policy having in mind to do a viatical settlement but shit does happen! That’s life.
Now let’s see what happens when this happens in real life because I was just sent such a case. Hugh is terminally ill and his doctor gave him 2 years. He applied for a living benefit on his $375,000 Sun Life insurance policy. It was denied. CHLIA had to be threatened with putting Hugh on TV to resolve this. Then the $100,000 magically appeared. How many times this is happening where the terminally ill don’t have any help, such as the help provided, having no other choice but to cancel their policies? How many?
The $100,000 was sent by Fedex with not even a cover letter. Sunlife, is this how you deal with terminally ill people? Where is the compassion? At least act professionally because it reflects on us all. And where was the advisor in all of this? Hiding in the hills, fearful that his agent contract would be terminated if he got involved? Is this what this industry has come to? Where was Advocis and where was Chambre Financiere who can’t stop saying that consumer protection is their top priority?
I hear it all the times that consumers need advisors. We can’t survive without them. To these advisors, here is what I have to say:
A little less acting with the mouth,
A little less acting with the feet,
A little more acting with the heart.
It even rhymes so that you can easily remember what’s important.
Now coming back to Industrial Alliance. You are stating that you will cancel the existing policy of a terminally ill policy owner if he enters into a viatical settlement…
How dare you say such a thing? You publicly admit that you will breach a legal contract. How dare you?
You state you are going to sue if a terminally ill client enters into such an arrangement. Money is power… Is this what you are all about?
How dare you say such a thing? This is the definition of legal insanity.
You state that you don’t care whether this is legal in any of the provinces. Does this mean Industrial Alliance has become too big to respect provincial laws? Maybe this is the argument I should used to argue that it is time that the business of insurance be legislated and regulated under federal law. I believe you are not yet too big to not respect federal laws.
How dare you say such a thing? Someone at IA is clearly not thinking these thoughts; this person is literally speaking “farting” these thoughts.
So here some news for you and the industry. In September, I am deposing a legal procedure in the Court of Quebec against Manulife in regards to this insanity. You just been added to my list of subpoenas (IA and Sun Life). And when you get to Court, I guarantee you there will be a lot of sick people in the crowd who have been denied their benefits (if they are still alive). Let’s see if you have the courage to make the same stupid statements when you are face to face with this crowd and a judge.
And where is the regulator? Where is the Autorite Marche Financier (AMF) because IA’s statements violate several provisions of the Insurance Act and the Act pertaining to the distribution and sale of insurance? IA admitted publicly they were going to break the law and commit fraud against the elderly and sick people!!!
Isn’t it their role to ensure the laws of the province of Quebec are respected?
When I ask this question in Court, am I going to find that the “good” people of the AMF were too busy sipping champagne and eating caviar with their “friendly” insurance executives to act and do their job?
A lot of people will condemn the language contained therein. I should be more diplomatic they will say; it is so much more constructive. Bullshit I say! If diplomacy worked, Ontario would not have acted against its own studies to cozy up to the insurance lobbying interests when prohibiting a secondary market for life insurance.
The day I don’t use this language and stop calling a dog for what it is; the day I don’t get angry when confronted by the pure exploitation of the elderly and people who are sick; it is the day I become a politician and run for election.
May this day never come!
Note: This will be included with the Cease and desist that will be officially served to key members of the Quebec government, informing them that they must desist from any activities in relation to modifying the current law to restrict the ownership of life insurance policies owned by the elderly and those with sickness in favor of increasing the bottom line of insurance companies, when all independent studies have clearly defined what is in the best interest of the public.
I am informing them that I will be challenging the constitutionality of any such changes in the law in favor of insurance companies. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not directly protect property rights, several sections of the Charter apply when considering that changes to property rights of insurance specifically target the elderly and the sick. If I have to go the Governor General of Canada, petitioning him to intervene under a not well known legal procedure to disallow such changes to provincial law; this is what I will do.