California authorities accused insurer John Hancock of withholding benefits from widows and other beneficiaries by allegedly failing to determine if its customers were dead.
John said the state had reached a settlement with Hancock, and said it was the first resulting from an audit of 21 insurance companies that Mr. Chiang began nearly three years ago.
In an interview, he characterized the avoidance of benefit payments as a widespread practice and said he expected to forge settlements or take actions such as lawsuits against other insurers.
Hancock said it is "outraged by the unsubstantiated allegations and characterizations," with respect to specific assertions in a statement by the controller's office.
カリフォルニア当局は保険会社のジョン ハンコックを顧客が死亡した場合に保険金支払の決定をきちんと果たさずに未亡人やその他の受取人に保険金の支払をしていなかったとして告発した。
ジョンは当州はハンコックとの和解に至ったとし、それはチャング氏が３年近く前に始めた保険会社21社の監査が始まってから初めての成果だと述べた。
インタビューで、彼は保険金の支払回避は広く行われていることだとし、でっちあげの和解若しくは他の保険会社に対して訴訟をおこすといった行動をとるつもりであったと述べた。ハンコックは、監査事務所による供述の中の特定の主張を尊重しつつ、これを「根拠の無い申立てと分析による侮辱」とした。
Even so, Hancock said it agreed to take a proactive approach to determine whether a customer has died because it sees that as the right thing to do for clients.
The dispute centers on just how far insurers must go to determine if customers whose accounts go dormant are still alive.
A California state law generally requires businesses to annually report and deliver property to the controller's office after there has been no customer contact for three years. The controller can then route the unclaimed property to its owner. Insurers, for example, must report accounts considered lost or abandoned to the state after three years of inactivity, according to a spokesman for the controller.
He said insurers, including John Hancock, have routinely failed to contact the controller as required.
Hancock, said the insurer has followed state law, which he believes doesn't require proactive steps by insurers to determine if policyholders still are alive, but rather notification from next of kin or the executors of a will.
"We pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year in death benefits.They are taking the exceptions to the rule and suggesting some malfeasance. We followed the rules, and we did it right."
Mr. Chiang accused Hancock of a long-standing practice of avoiding death benefits, and instead paying itself premiums from the accrued value of policies rendered inactive after a customer's death.
