No Ducking: AFLAC, Transamerica Hit With $2.5M in Fines, Restitution for Insurance Law Violations
AFLAC and Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Co. violated more than a dozen New York insurance laws and regulations between 2006 and 2014, according to the state Department of Financial Services.
July 02, 2018 at 04:56 PM
4 minute read
Two insurers agreed to pay close to $2.5 million in restitution and penalties on Monday for failing to provide information required by law to policyholders in New York state. The American Family Life Assurance Co. of New York, or AFLAC, and Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Co. violated more than a dozen of the state's insurance laws and regulations between 2006 and 2014, the state Department of Financial Services said. Monday's action by the DFS was the second in as many weeks against life insurance companies that did not follow the state's insurance regulations when contacting customers. Athene Life Insurance Co. and First Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Co. entered into similar agreements with the DFS last week after the agency found those companies did not communicate with their policyholders as required by law. Related story DFS Fines Insurance Companies Over Lapse in Mandated Communication With Policyholders AFLAC's violations involved both its communication with customers and its marketing practices. The company's agreement with the DFS listed several violations of the state's laws and regulations from 2009 to 2011. The agreement said AFLAC did not give potential customers information that's required by law before an application for a policy is taken. That information is not detailed in the agreement. AFLAC also failed to mention in ads for policies with accelerated death benefits that receiving those benefits could affect someone's eligibility for public assistance programs, the DFS said. It also left out that those benefits might be taxable. The company also did not train its agents to follow the state's regulations about replacement life insurance policies, the DFS said. AFLAC made restitution totaling $961,478 to New York consumers as part of the agreement. The company also paid a civil penalty of $176,890 to the agency. The agreement with Transamerica detailed violations from 2006 to 2009 and 2010 to 2014. During the first period, Transamerica failed to tell customers their policy was going to lapse and did not provide information on how to reinstate their coverage, the DFS said. Their disclosure form also did not tell customers that receipt of accelerated death benefits could affect their eligibility for public assistance. More violations were documented during the second period. The company failed to tell policyholders when late premiums were due and what the consequences of not paying them would be during that time, according to the agreement. It also did not provide a timeline for policyholders to follow when those notices were sent. Transamerica did not follow a number of other regulations as well, such as one that requires it to show that a policyholder received a completed notice and disclosure statement, the agreement said. It also did not file required policy forms with the DFS, the agency said. Transamerica made restitution to policyholders of $582,436 as part of the agreement. The company will also pay a civil penalty of $762,700 and turn over $105,415 in unclaimed funds to the DFS. Maria Vullo, superintendent of the DFS, said in a statement Monday that the agreement is another action by the agency to protect policyholders in New York. “Consumers should be able to trust that their insurers are providing them with information that helps them make the best decision,” Vullo said. “DFS's regulation protects the interest of the public by establishing minimum standards of conduct to be observed in the replacement or proposed replacement of life insurance policies.” Representatives for AFLAC and Transamerica did not immediately return requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurance Company Sues Over 180 Health Care Providers for Fraud Under RICO
3 minute readNew York Court of Appeals Tightens Pleading Standards Against Insurance Policyholder
7 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readGE Agrees to $362.5M Deal to End Shareholder Claims Over Power, Insurance Risks
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250