The Lapsed License and the Referral Fee
Dana is a life and health producer licensed in Alaska whose two-year license term ended on October 31. She completed 18 hours of continuing education, including 1 hour of ethics, and did not file a renewal before expiration. In November she submitted three fixed annuity applications, and she emailed two clients recommending replacement of their existing deferred annuities with new contracts, collecting the signed replacement notices only after the new policies were delivered. She also paid $1,500 to a friend who holds no insurance license and who had referred the three annuity prospects to her. In December the insurer paid Dana commissions on all three policies, and the insurer never updated its appointment filing for her.
1. What is the licensing status of Dana's November activity, and what exposure does the insurer have?
Read the worked answer
Dana was unlicensed when she transacted the business. A producer's authority exists only while the license is in force; once the term ended on October 31, every solicitation, application, and recommendation in November was an unlicensed act of the business of insurance.
Her CE record independently blocks renewal. Alaska requires 24 hours of continuing education per two-year term, including 3 hours of ethics. With 18 total hours and 1 ethics hour, she is short on both counts, so a renewal could not have been granted as filed.
The insurer's position is also compromised. An insurer may pay commission and accept business only from a properly licensed, appointed producer. Paying Dana in December, with a stale appointment and an expired license, is itself a violation that exposes the carrier to penalties regardless of Dana's intent.
Clean-up path: stop all solicitation immediately, reinstate the license and complete CE before writing anything further, and treat the three applications as business produced without authority. Intent is not an element; the violation is the unlicensed transaction itself.
2. Is the $1,500 paid to the unlicensed friend permissible?
Read the worked answer
No. Compensation for procuring or referring insurance business may be paid only to a licensed producer (or to a person within a narrow statutory exception, such as an enumerated professional acting in the ordinary course of business who does not discuss policy terms).
The friend holds no license and did nothing but steer three prospects to Dana. The payment was contingent on the sale closing, which makes it a share of commission rather than a fee for an unrelated service. That is unlawful sharing of commissions with an unlicensed person.
Both sides are exposed: Dana for paying it, the friend for accepting it and for soliciting without a license, and indirectly the insurer whose commissions funded it. The lawful fix is a licensed referral arrangement or a flat, non-contingent payment that fits squarely inside a statutory exception - not a per-sale bounty.
3. Evaluate Dana's handling of the two annuity replacements.
Read the worked answer
The timing is wrong. A replacement notice is a point-of-sale document. It must be completed and signed by the applicant and the producer when the application is taken, a copy left with the applicant, and the existing insurer notified so it can compare contracts. Obtaining signatures after delivery converts a disclosure duty into paperwork.
Why it matters practically: the notice exists so the client understands surrender charges, loss of guaranteed features, new contestability and a fresh surrender schedule on the replacing contract. Delaying the signature means the client committed to the exchange without that comparison.
Consequences: the producer has violated replacement rules, the insurer has been deprived of its right to conserve the business, and the client retains the contract's free-look right plus a strong complaint position. Two back-to-back replacements within one month also create a red flag for the market-conduct review, even if each individual notice was eventually signed.