There is an insurance agent in Jackson Mississippi, whose insurance license were revoked for writing insurance policies for a Mother and grandmother/ who wanted to get life insurance for her adult children and grandchildren.

When an agents writes a life insurance policy,normally premium payments are set up to be automatically withdrawn from the insureds bank account, which was case for this agents and client.

The insurance company is only allowed to withdraw the amount due to them that is specified in the policy, and does not have the authority to withdraw a higher amount of premium, without first contacting the agent, who then contacts the insured of any extra premiums due.

According to insurance laws and provisions, an insurance company must also add an amendment which is placed within the policy, where as upon the delivery of the policy which is done by the agent, who has the insured to sign the amendment, which shows that the insured agrees and excepts the request for extra premium to be withdrawn from their bank account.This action never took place on part of the insurance company. The Department of Insurance in Mississippi did not administer the proper disciplinary measures which were necessary toward the insurance company, instead they chose to show unfair treatment to the agent without a justifiable cause.  

The insurance agent involved in this case never handled any premium payments. The insurance company withdrew three months of premium from this clients account, along with many other clients of this agent, without authorization, or the required signed amendment, which caused each clients bank accounts to be overdrawn. Again the insurance company was never sited or shown any disciplinary actions by the Mississippi Department of Insurance. 

The insurance company then contacted the clients, inquiring that their premiums were returned by their banks. Although the mother and grandmother who I spoke about early was concerned about the higher premium which was drafted from her bank, she spoke only with the agent and her bank, she had her bank to call the insurance company. Due to her not authoring the amount taken from her bank by the insurance company. The clients bank called the insurance company as they would any other merchant or company when there account holder has concerns about there bank account.

The bank informed the insurance company that they had withdrawn an overage, which was not due to them. The insurance company would not take responsibility for their actions which the bank confirmed to their client, instead they contacted the agent and told her that she was terminated, because the insured had called and stated to them that she had no knowledge of the insurance policies, nor did she know the people that she had the agent to insure, although they were her own children. Although the agent knew that she hadn't did anything wrong ,the insurance company blamed the agent for the extra premium taken from her clients bank, and the Department of Insurance followed the insurance companies lead, which by far is just a good old taste of well known southern hospitality. 

The insurance agent tried to tell the companies Representative that this was not true, because she had spoken with the insured, and she knew that the insured hadn't contacted the insurance company. She told the Representative that it was the insureds bank who had contacted them. The insurance company Representative, knew that she had made a mistake by taking action before communicating with the agent, but had decided that she would by any means necessary prosecute the agent, but I just don't understand how her superiors allowed her to do this, when the agent never touched a dime in premium.The Representatives Supervisors, had to at some point see that the Representative had made the situation more of a personal vendetta against the agent.      

  The Representative continued to be very harsh and head strong, and she wouldn't listen to what the agent had to say, the Representative, actually hung the phone up in the insurance agents face. The agent then called the insured, and shared the information that she had received from the insurance company, the client agreed with the agent

The agent called the insurance company back, and conference the client in on the call, the client tried to explain the information to the insurance company along with the agent, but again the phone was hung up by the person who represented the insurance company.

The agent tried one last attempt to correspond with the companies Representative, but the Representative told t the agent that the insurance department would be contacted, and a formal complaint would be made against the agent.

The agent asked why would you do such a thing? When the she hadn't allowed her or the client due process to give an explanation. The Representative called the agent a stupid nigger, and again hung up the phone. No one at the Commissioners of Insurance office or the Insurance Company, addressed the Representative for calling the agent out of her name. They all act as if it never happened, although the conversation was recorded. 

Soon the agent received a certified letter from the Legal Division of the Mississippi Department of Insurance, requesting that the agent reply to the letter within a ten days. The agent replied to the letter in detail.

But the letters contents were standard to a personal vendetta against the agent and her client. The letter didn't reveal proper proof of misconduct, the material stated by the insurance company. The insurance company also stated that the agent and the client were both involved, both committed fraud, and both had acted together.

The material also stated that the insured adult children did not have the same last name, and one of her daughters couldn't be her biological child due to age difference, because the client would have had to give birth to her daughter at age twelve. But the insurance companies math was off, the insured gave birth to her daughter at age fourteen.

The agent attached copies of birth certificates to her return letter which listed the client as the birth mother to all of her children, which she had insured with the company.

The insurance Company also complained that the agent had sent quiet a number of client through their data base, who did not have driver license, and due to that fact, they were not eligible for life insurance coverage which was another complaint added.

But last time that I checked, what would drivers license have to do with applying for life insurance? And how would the agent know if the clients had an active drivers license?

The agent did have a copy of each clients driver license in their file, but had no way of knowing the status.Shouldn't the insurance companies software on their E-commerce loading site, have the capability to weed out unlicensed drivers if this was a qualification, to purchase their product?

When it was annual license renewal season for the agent, she visited the Department of Insurance to get assistance with filling out her renewal form due to a question on the form asking if any complaints had been filed against the agent.

The agent was assisted by the licensing division and was told to attach a small memo of what happened, although she had already answered the letters contents.

The agent had applied earlier for a higher rank of license, but she was told by licensing that she couldn't produce with the license that she requested, so she changed her mind and applied for her usual entity and individual license.

The agent left the remainder of the money her next licensing renewal period. During her wait although she paid a separate payment, with available funds still attached to her file.

She never received her Property and Casualty entity license, unaware that this would haunt her in time, she continued to request her missing license, and was continuously told by licensing that they were mailed. This was another charge: operating without a license, although it was the insurance departments fault, because the agent hadn't received her entity license, the agent had a producer number for individual and entity, so if she had not received the entity license she was not operating without a license do to having both. Again no one would take responsibility for their wrong doing, and blamed the agent.

After applying for a new company the agent found, that her profile which verified proof of life and health license had been removed from the insurance data base.The agent called the Department of insurance to see why but was continuously given the run around. She went to the Department of Insurance, an attorney from the Legal Division finally came out to speak with her about her situation.

She was told that her license were denied she asked why? She was told that along with the case already pending against her, she had also been accused of issuing a fraudulent workers compensation binder which she had no knowledge of. The agent asked why hadn't she been contacted about the new charges or the decision made? she didn't get an answer.

She asked had there been an investigation? She was told no. She asked had anyone spoke with the complaining companies or the clients? She was told no, and that the department of insurance didn't know the people, and had no idea where they were.

Devastated by what she heard she contact the legal division supervisor, and informed him of the actions of his departments, but he did nothing. She tried to inform the commissioner of what was happening, he wouldn't speak with her or see her. Finally the agent received a letter addressing all of the charges against her. The letter stated that she had issued a binder for worker compensation that was fraudulent,along with all of the other chargers listed above.

The agent answered the letter, and explained that she knew nothing about the insured or the binder. and she explained that the consumer had to make the binder, which the Insurance department admitted that they knew of consumers making false binders and insurance cards for proof of insurance.

So the agent agreed to a hearing. The agent decided to called one day to check and see if a hearing date had been set. The agent was told by the secretary that she that her hearing was set for 2:00pm that day. The agent told the sectary that she had not received any notice of the hearing.

The agent was told that a letter was sent to her certified, The agent didn't argue, she told the secretary that she would attend the hearing, but the agent feared the worse, because her attorney would not be able to attend due to the short notice of the hearing.

Once the agent arrived she was called back, and given her notice of hearing letter by hand. They told that at her original notice was at post office awaiting pickup, but the agent replied to them by saying that she contacted her post office prior to her arrival, and she was informed that there was no mail there nor had there been any certified letter for her at the post office.

The Legal Division was stalled for answers, and decided not to move forward with the hearing and they reset the date. The agent felt that they were trying to .set her up because they knew that the evidence was weak, but again they didn't want to admit being wrong.

The Agent attended the hearing and was cleared of all charges except one.The consumer who reported the binder showed up, The agents attorney and the Legal division of the insurance could tell that the consumer only recognized the agent, because she was sitting in front of the consumer.

The consumer had no receipt or paper work, but he said that he paid the agent $800.00, and he said that the signature on the binder belong to him, but only the agent signs a binder. The consumer also stated that he was disabled, and that he was not the owner of the company.

If the consumer was not the owner of the company, why was he there? The consumer said that his son owned the company, but the consumers son did not attend the hearing. My opinion, is that this agent was a target. And that there had to be friendship between the Insurance company, the insurance department and the consumer. The binder charge is still pending against this agent all the other charges are dismissed. She awaits her day in court.

Mississippi has not changed very much when it comes to skin color or race.

Actually there is a Doctor's Office located in a small town called Lexington Mississippi, which  has continued to have separate waiting areas for African Americans and its White citizens, and nothing has been done about it.

This is a true story.