The ink on your licenses must still be wet. Any idiot doing business in NYS would already know the statute, which has existed for many years. If this is any indication of your insurance knowledge… hope your E&O is paid up.
The legal opinion didn’t say that the agent had to put HIS/HER address on the advertisement. The legal opinion stated that the agent had to put the principal office of the INSURANCE COMPANIES on his/her advertisements (if/when mentioned by name). In other words, if I, Joe Agent run an ad stating that I can sell you State Farm life insurance, I would have to also include STLIC’s address: One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington IL 61710.
I’m sure it’s vitally important to include a company’s home office address in your advertising, or the NYSID wouldn’t require it, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what that vitally important reason would be. Perhaps one of the brighter lights out there could explain.
I don’t know the history of the NY law but, based on my experience, it’s a good one. I’ve worked as an agent on the life/accident/disability and health side of telemarketing and internet sales and one of the the ways they keep people, once they’re signed up, from cancelling their policies is to make it as hard as possible for the insured to contact the company. (They also put you on hold forever when you call customer (dis)service to cancel and then when you do get a live person they argue with you about why you shouldn’t cancel) Some of the companies, with sleazy practices, that I’ve sold for, have very recognizable names but the average consumer has no idea where they’re located. I agree with the majority of you if, you do business with a reputable agent, who represent honorable companies, this information just adds to their advertising costs.
Congratulations on working for a sleazy company. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Bad apples like you stink up the rest of the barrel. And the NY law does not increase advertising costs. Most agents use microscopic size print to show the home office address.
A government bureaucrat says, lets allow policyholders a method to contact the insurance company if they don’t trust their broker/agent. Well guess what, the dishonest brokers/agents prefer to stay below the radar screen so they don’t advertise and thereby penalizing all of the honest brokers/agents.
How old is this regulation? If it’s old enough, I would guess that it could be an attempt to get NY customers to buy from NY insurers. A lot of regulation from before McCarran was aimed at protectionism.
To the reputable agent. I used to work with those companies, and nothing they do is “illegal” but because I felt they we’re not ethical, I left the job. Hope you’re never in a situation where you have to chose between supporting your family and working for a company that operates on the boundries of regulation. Anyway I was commenting on the “reasons” for such a law not on justifying my working for one of the companies that these laws are aimed at.
Is this the fourth corollary of Spitzer Rule # 1235?
There are some silly people passing silly rules and laws in New York. The nanny state indeed.
… why would you ask? Do you see anyone else who’s an agent that’s dumb enough to ask if they have to put up their home office address?
The ink on your licenses must still be wet. Any idiot doing business in NYS would already know the statute, which has existed for many years. If this is any indication of your insurance knowledge… hope your E&O is paid up.
I don’t work with NY and don’t care to. I just think it’s a silly law.
The legal opinion didn’t say that the agent had to put HIS/HER address on the advertisement. The legal opinion stated that the agent had to put the principal office of the INSURANCE COMPANIES on his/her advertisements (if/when mentioned by name). In other words, if I, Joe Agent run an ad stating that I can sell you State Farm life insurance, I would have to also include STLIC’s address: One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington IL 61710.
I’m sure it’s vitally important to include a company’s home office address in your advertising, or the NYSID wouldn’t require it, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what that vitally important reason would be. Perhaps one of the brighter lights out there could explain.
I don’t know the history of the NY law but, based on my experience, it’s a good one. I’ve worked as an agent on the life/accident/disability and health side of telemarketing and internet sales and one of the the ways they keep people, once they’re signed up, from cancelling their policies is to make it as hard as possible for the insured to contact the company. (They also put you on hold forever when you call customer (dis)service to cancel and then when you do get a live person they argue with you about why you shouldn’t cancel) Some of the companies, with sleazy practices, that I’ve sold for, have very recognizable names but the average consumer has no idea where they’re located. I agree with the majority of you if, you do business with a reputable agent, who represent honorable companies, this information just adds to their advertising costs.
Congratulations on working for a sleazy company. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Bad apples like you stink up the rest of the barrel. And the NY law does not increase advertising costs. Most agents use microscopic size print to show the home office address.
A government bureaucrat says, lets allow policyholders a method to contact the insurance company if they don’t trust their broker/agent. Well guess what, the dishonest brokers/agents prefer to stay below the radar screen so they don’t advertise and thereby penalizing all of the honest brokers/agents.
How old is this regulation? If it’s old enough, I would guess that it could be an attempt to get NY customers to buy from NY insurers. A lot of regulation from before McCarran was aimed at protectionism.
To the reputable agent. I used to work with those companies, and nothing they do is “illegal” but because I felt they we’re not ethical, I left the job. Hope you’re never in a situation where you have to chose between supporting your family and working for a company that operates on the boundries of regulation. Anyway I was commenting on the “reasons” for such a law not on justifying my working for one of the companies that these laws are aimed at.