Last week, we reported on the unlikely story of an agent facing major problems for selling an annuity to an 83-year-old. Today comes word that - incredibly - "Glenn Neasham's request for a new trial was denied on Feb. 29 by a county judge and he was sentenced to 300 days, reduced to 90 days."What's so striking about this is that all of the paperwork (check, app, etc) were submitted in a timely manner to Allianz (the carrier whose product Mr Neasham sold) where it was reviewed for suitability and the like, and ultimately issued.
Allianz has apparently washed its hands of the matter:
"Allianz is not familiar with the evidence introduced at trial, or the basis for the jury’s conviction. Accordingly, Allianz Life cannot comment on the verdict or the jury’s basis for reaching its verdict."
Nor is it willing to get involved at any other level.
On the one hand, because Mr Neasham was apparently an independent agent who represented Allianz but was not an employee, it's under no obligation to step up. But here's the thing: by failing to do so, isn't it tacitly admitting that it, too, may have failed in its review? At the very least, it seems to me to bring into question the viability of its indexed annuity product - if a judge and jury say that it was never appropriate, then doesn't that reflect back on Allianz practices, as well?
One wonders, of course, why the family of the "victim" hasn't sued Allianz for a return of that premium. Of course, it could be that it's because the contract (which she still owns) has earned north of $40,000. So what, exactly, is the crime here?
For now, Mr Neasham is headed for jail pending his next appeal.
Methinks we haven't heard the last of this.
Posts
