Alberta levies civil penalties for clear pattern of misrepresentation

The Life Insurance Council of the Alberta Insurance Council has issued a decision, levying civil penalties totaling $55,000 against Evelyn De Jesus, a formerly licensed agent, who was terminated with cause by her former agency, after it was discovered that De Jesus was reimbursing clients, telling them that their employer was paying for their premiums.  

De Jesus did not respond to a written report or to demands for information sent by investigators. The former agency’s investigators noted that she made arrangements to reimburse the premiums paid as long as her clients were employed with an unnamed third-party employer. Clients would pay the premium through their bank accounts and De Jesus would e-transfer payments back to them. At least one client stated that they did not have enough money to cover the payments unless they were reimbursed. Out of 46 clients identified, 45 cancelled their policies. “The agent has incurred a significant debt with the company which may never be recovered,” the former agency states.  

When asked if clients were required to get insurance when they subcontracted with the employer, De Jesus agreed on two occasions, also agreeing that the former agency’s products were the client’s only option. When one client claimed De Jesus offered him $1,000 to purchase a policy, De Jesus said this was simply a salary she was offering for snow removal.  

“All former clients involved made mention of the company no longer paying the insurance premiums,” the decision states. “In light of the responses given by all former clients, the council is of the view that all former clients were under the impression that the third-party employer was to be paying the insurance premiums.” 

They add that the council found the agent to be evasive and vague when responding to the former agency’s questions. “Council was also concerned by potential affordability issues of the insurance products sold to the former clients in light of the occupations that were listed on their respective policy applications,” the decision continues. “The agent placed her personal needs for financial gain over and above the needs of the former clients.”