The Insurance Council of British Columbia is sanctioning Judy Laban, a life, accident and sickness insurance agent and a level 2 general insurance agent, after Laban sold life policies to her former business partner and his associate, who in turn reported her, claiming she sold the policies only to meet persistency goals. 

Licensed since March 2011, Laban’s client first complained that the licensee only convinced them to purchase the policy by promising to pay the premiums for it. She also complained that Laban then ceased paying those premiums, causing the policy to lapse, claiming to be shocked by the development. “Additionally, the complainant had concerns that the license used a mailing address where the complainant could not receive policy documents,” the intended decision states. Laban was later able to produce a text message from the complainant’s spouse indicating that she should send policy documents to the couple’s cottage. “The complainant further alleged that the licensee ceased to pay the premiums for policy 2 after the licensee’s persistency goals were met.” 

Former business partner 

The complainant’s spouse, identified only as JS, was Laban’s former business partner and agency co-owner – a licensed life agent at the time the life policies were issued. In January 2020 they formalized an agreement with Laban buying out JS’s shares and interest in the agency. “The licensee advised that she notified JS in person that she ceased paying the premiums.” 

Although the client at the time of the policy purchase declined a needs analysis, the insurance council states that Laban still should have provided full disclosure of the complainant’s insurance needs. They also state that Laban should not have relied on JS’s advice or presumed that he’d provided advice in the matter – despite the fact that Laban says the couple already knew what coverages they wanted to purchase. The council also warns that rebating policy premiums is not an appropriate way to split expenses or pay business partners. 

“Although council had some concerns regarding the licensee’s competency, council did not conclude that supervision was necessary in this matter. Council has determined that the misconduct resulted from the relationship between the parties and is satisfied that this was likely an isolated incident. Additionally, the licensee has taken the appropriate steps to rectify competency concerns through compliance and document management courses, which the licensee took on her own initiative.” 

In addition to costs in the amount of $2,312.50, Laban was also fined $6,000.