The Insurance Council of British Columbia has stopped short of fining Liza Tanigue Gatasi, instead ordering remedial education and supervision after Gatasi’s agency levied a $1,000 fine of its own for selling a policy that was not understood by clients, and for facilitating the cancellation of an existing policy, contrary to the best interests of the clients.
Only when the complaining client became ill did he come to realize that his life was not insured – a situation that Gatasi says she knew about, but could not recall advising her clients about. The firm also made Gatasi contribute $2,077.50 towards reimbursing the client’s premiums.
“The former licensee informed the committee that she had known that Mr. C would not be insured, should the pre-existing policy be cancelled. She also could not recall giving the complainants advice pertaining to the cancellation of the pre-existing policy and admitted that she might not have given any,” the regulator’s intended decision states.
Insurer declined the application
First licensed between 2010 and 2017, and relicensed from April 2019 until August 2023, Gatasi assisted the complaining clients with an application for universal life that would provide coverage to the wife as part of strategy to generate retirement income with the accumulation of cash values inside the policy. The insurer declined the application because of the husband’s medical history. Later that year she sold the couple a universal life policy which, contrary to the couple’s understanding, covered the life of the wife, rather than the husband.
When the clients communicated that they could not afford to pay for both the new policy and the pre-existing policy that the husband already owned, Gatasi provided them with a draft termination letter which they submitted to their insurers. “In March 2021, Mr. C became ill, at which point the complainants realized his life was not insured.”
The regulator’s committee took issue with Gatasi’s needs analysis practices and with the fact that she could not detail any actions taken to determine if the clients could afford what she was selling.
Facilitated cancelation of pre-existing policy
“Council does not believe the former licensee set out to mislead the complainants in any way. Nevertheless, the former licensee did not take sufficient care to ensure the complainants understood material details about the insurance product she sold them, and she also facilitated the cancelation of the pre-existing policy, contrary to the best interests of the complainants,” the council’s intended decision states.
Before Gatasi can become re-registered in the future, she must first complete a number of courses, including the Council Rules Course for life and/or accident and sickness insurance, the Advocis Making Choices I, II and III: Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Practice courses, two compliance toolkit courses from Advocis pertaining to fact-finding and suitability and the Advocis Challenge of Documenting Nothing course. She is also ordered to pay the council’s investigation costs totalling $1,750. If Gatasi does receive a life agent’s license again in the future, she will be required to be supervised for two years.
