This is the FOURTH time that this author has written on the subject in the last year.
New York Insurance Law § 2122(b) (McKinney 2000), entitled "advertising by insurance agents and brokers", provides as follows:
"Every agent of any insurer and every insurance broker shall, in all advertisements, public announcements, signs, pamphlets, circulars and cards, which refer to an insurer, set forth therein the name in full of the insurer referred to and the name of the city, town or village in which it has its principal office in the United States". (underlines for emphasis)
On May 13, 2009 this author sent Dan Durbin and Joseph Ricci, respectively the President and Executive Director of NSSTA, the following email:
"Dan & Joe,
Is compliance with state insurance law an issue for our members, including companies represented by several board and committee members?
**Of course I could just MMOB, but there is the matter of Principle VI of the NSSTA Code of Ethics which was adopted 12 years ago and is being used in advertising (by NSSTA members). In this respect I believe that NSSTA has a duty to (1) inform its members (2) take a proactive role to assure that at the very least those professional members ( and the organizations they represent) who serve on its board and committees make an effort to set an example in this area**.
Shouldn't we strive to make Principle VI actually mean something? What can NSSTA do to inform and assist its members?"
Per Durbin, the topic was to be added to the June 3, 2009 Board of Directors meeting. to have a full discussion of this matter. I was asked to identify the number of agencies that may be out of compliance with the aformentioned statute, which I did. Those agencies include websites of certain NSSTA Board members.
As I write this post I continue to question why the websites of at several members of NSSTA Board of Directors are not in compliance with the above statute and have not been for some time? While the alleged non compliance with the New York statute may seem insignificant (1) non compliance is symbolic (2) the statute exists for a reason and (3) the correction to each website to bring it in compliance requires minimal action.
I strongly suggest that each and every member of the NSSTA re-read Principle VI of the NSSTA code of Ethics and the asterisked paragraph of my email to Durbin/Ricci.
It is vital that the Board of Directors of NSSTA uphold the NSSTA Code of Ethics, in my opinion. How about yours?
The head of the NSSTA membership committee, appointed by the NSSTA Board of Directors and purportedly (and coincidentally) nominated by one of the NSSTA board members whose agency allegedly IS NOT in compliance with the above cited New York statute , once signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury to the United States Department of Justice that included a statement that was mutually exclusive to his company's advertising to the nation's plaintiffs and plaintiff trial lawyers. I think the inaction says something.
As I write this post I continue to question why the websites of at several members of NSSTA Board of Directors are not in compliance with the above statute and have not been for some time? While the alleged non compliance with the New York statute may seem insignificant (1) non compliance is symbolic (2) the statute exists for a reason and (3) the correction to each website to bring it in compliance requires minimal action.
I strongly suggest that each and every member of the NSSTA re-read Principle VI of the NSSTA code of Ethics and the asterisked paragraph of my email to Durbin/Ricci.
It is vital that the Board of Directors of NSSTA uphold the NSSTA Code of Ethics, in my opinion. How about yours?
The head of the NSSTA membership committee, appointed by the NSSTA Board of Directors and purportedly (and coincidentally) nominated by one of the NSSTA board members whose agency allegedly IS NOT in compliance with the above cited New York statute , once signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury to the United States Department of Justice that included a statement that was mutually exclusive to his company's advertising to the nation's plaintiffs and plaintiff trial lawyers. I think the inaction says something.
Comments