Because Svetlana Rock did not accept responsibility or display any remorse for her misconduct during its investigation, the Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICoBC) has concluded, “based on her denial of the misconduct,” that there is a risk she could repeat her offences if she were to be licensed again in the future.

The former agent is being sanctioned for failing to fairly and accurately advise a client about an exclusion clause contained in his critical illness insurance policy. It was also noted that Rock failed to place insurance coverage as instructed by the client.

First licensed in January 2021, Rock’s license was cancelled in August 2023 for non-renewal. The council received a complaint from her former client shortly thereafter.

“The complainant stated that he was misinformed about the policy and provided with incomplete or false information about it, which resulted in his critical illness claim being denied,” the intended decision in the case states.

Client was waiting for a transplant 

When he purchased the policy through the agency’s call centre where Rock had been working for less than a month, the client was recorded telling the former agent that he had a stent, had been to the hospital for high blood pressure, was going on kidney dialysis, had bypass surgery and was waiting for a transplant.

Rock reportedly told the complainant that the policy had a second event rider that would allow him to claim two separate illnesses under the same policy. “The former licensee confirmed to the complainant that if he had bypass surgery, he could submit a claim right away,” the decision continues. “The former licensee confirmed that the complainant did not need to have a completed medical assessment.” The client’s claim on the policy was later denied.

The agency itself says its review of the situation indicated that Rock did not intentionally mislead the customer. “The agency admitted that the former licensee could have done a better job relaying information about the policy to the complainant. The agency also acknowledged that both the agency and the former licensee could have provided the complainant with a better customer experience. However, the agency believed that the former licensee did follow the agency’s sales processes to the best of her abilities at the time,” they write.

“When asked if there was anything she would have done differently with the complainant, she said that she fulfilled her duties as an advisor and that she followed the training provided by the agency.” 

Aggravating factor 

In addition to determining that Rock misrepresented the claims process and benefits of the policy, it was this lack of remorse that was noted as an aggravating factor in the case.

Although the council stopped short of levying a monetary penalty, it assessed investigation costs in the amount of $2,437.50 and ordered Rock to complete three remedial courses on fact finding, suitability and documentation. If she returns to the industry, Rock must also be supervised by a life and accident and sickness insurance agent the council approves of, for a period of two years.