Laid off nominee sanctioned for transferring business to new agency

The Insurance Council of British Columbia is sanctioning level 2 insurance agent Jennifer Lai Yee Chiu over allegations that she took client information from her previous agency once laid off and used it to contact clients to transfer the business to a new agency.

All told, the council fined Chiu $4,000, ordered her to pay $1,900 in costs and ordered her to complete the Privacy Compliance Course, How to Protect Your Brokerage, Parts 1 and 2 offered through the Insurance Brokers Association of British Columbia and the Council Rules Course for general insurance salespersons and agents.

First licensed in November 1992, Chiu was the nominee of the previous agency from September 2004 until she was laid off December 1, 2020. Following her layoff, her previous agency, which later complained to the insurance council, began receiving letters of brokerage transferring personal lines business to the new agency.

When it complained, the agency also pointed out that Chiu’s commissions were being made payable to her husband with no written agreement for the arrangement in place.

Chiu claims the previous agency told her to keep client contact information in her personal phone so they could easily reach her and denied contacting clients to ask them to transfer their business. In a conflicting statement she states that she contacted approximately 60 per cent of her clients. She also claims she began obtaining client’s written consent to keep their records, including contact information, beginning in 2018 but did not keep a copy of the forms. The council in its intended decision also noted that it would be odd for a broker to ask each client to sign such forms. 

“Council was troubled by the licensee’s admission that she kept confidential client information, including telephone numbers, on her phone. Council did not believe the licensee’s actions were honest mistakes; rather the actions were contrary to the usual practice of the business of insurance," the council states in its intended decision.  

The decision goes on to say that council did not believe she had express written consent from all clients to retain and use their personal information and expressed concerns about her credibility. “In all, council did not believe the licensee to be truthful,” they state.