View Single Post
Old
08-23-2012, 10:10 PM
  #19
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,647
vCash: 500
The language issue just won't fly.
On the other hand if the INS guy had no right to operate in Quebec and Great west signed off on the policy from a non accredited agent well now that's a very different thing.

Markov is NOT asking for a financial gain due to fraud. His is asking for his money (premiums) back because the policy was sold by someone with NO Authority to do so. If Great West signed off on the policy from a NON AGENT the policy should never have been issued. You have to pass courses to become an AGENT. You have to have a Quebec INS Agent License.

Markov has had NO financial gain because of this policy, the problem is, the second Markov would have or Markovs family would have tried to make that BIG CLAIM, Great West would be the FIRST in court to nullify the policy.

So the truth is Markov paid out 1.2 million for something that was NOT LEGAL.

Any judge will see if the policy was NEVER going to be paid out on a claim Markov has a case. Add to this the fact if the judge decides to go back to square one and return all the paid out premiums to Markov, Great West has lost NO MONEY in the deal.

How can Great West ask to keep the money on a void policy.

Now If Great West is willing to admit in open court that it does not care what is told to their clients at the time of purchase by persons or person earning commissions paid to them by Great West I bet the lawsuits will flood in starting tomorrow.

So as far as I can see the whole thing swings on proof that the person that sold and got commissions was NOT allowed to do so In Quebec.
If true, Great West will lose this.

RC51 is offline   Reply With Quote