Do I have to be sponsored by a life insurance to apply for and take the test?
Total Comments: 4
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 08:06 pm Post Subject:
Not in California. In other states, the answer could be yes.
However, even in California, if you are licensed, but not appointed by an insurance company or agency, you will have an "inactive" license, and will not be able to transact insurance.
So my question is, why do you want to be insurance licensed?
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 03:38 pm Post Subject:
Most states do NOT require that you are appointed by a carrier to get your license. Washington was one of the last states to get rid of this requirement and I am not aware of any others. As always, I could be wrong and I'm sure others will point this out if I am! :shock:
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 07:12 am Post Subject:
Wow! I'm always learning new things these days..
Max, I've never been able to fully understand why some states follow it and some don't.
you will have an "inactive" license, and will not be able to transact insurance.
Then what do you actually do with such license? I thought people would only look for insurance whenever they'd have the need to transact insurance.
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 05:00 pm Post Subject:
Up until about 12-15 years ago, California would not allow a person to take an insurance exam unless they had a "pending" notice of appointment on file with the Insurance Commissioner. The appointment became effective the day the license was issued.
Then what do you actually do with such license? I thought people would only look for insurance whenever they'd have the need to transact insurance.
Your question and the follow on statement are walking two sides of the street.
In all states, as far as I know, without at least one notice of appointment as an insurance company's/agency's agent, even though their license is not cancelled, an agent with an inactive license is not permitted to solicit or transact insurance.
Persons looking for insurance need to transact directly with the insurance company (such as 21st Century Auto) or they need to transact through an agent (captive or independent). It's the agent who needs an active license.
Having said all this, there are people out there who transact insurance, collect money from people for insurance, issue evidence of insurance to those persons who wrote checks or handed over cash, and then pocket the money leaving the person uncovered. Some actually have insurance licenses, others do not.
Most people NEVER contact the insurance company to determine whether they have a valid policy or not. Then, when they actually have a claim and call the insurance company, they discover the sad truth. It begins a whole investigation process, and the "agent" is eventually caught and convicted. But the fact is, with no insurance no claim is payable.
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 08:06 pm Post Subject:
Not in California. In other states, the answer could be yes.
However, even in California, if you are licensed, but not appointed by an insurance company or agency, you will have an "inactive" license, and will not be able to transact insurance.
So my question is, why do you want to be insurance licensed?
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 03:38 pm Post Subject:
Most states do NOT require that you are appointed by a carrier to get your license. Washington was one of the last states to get rid of this requirement and I am not aware of any others. As always, I could be wrong and I'm sure others will point this out if I am! :shock:
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 07:12 am Post Subject:
Wow! I'm always learning new things these days..
Max, I've never been able to fully understand why some states follow it and some don't.
you will have an "inactive" license, and will not be able to transact insurance.
Then what do you actually do with such license? I thought people would only look for insurance whenever they'd have the need to transact insurance.
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 05:00 pm Post Subject:
Up until about 12-15 years ago, California would not allow a person to take an insurance exam unless they had a "pending" notice of appointment on file with the Insurance Commissioner. The appointment became effective the day the license was issued.
Then what do you actually do with such license? I thought people would only look for insurance whenever they'd have the need to transact insurance.
Your question and the follow on statement are walking two sides of the street.
In all states, as far as I know, without at least one notice of appointment as an insurance company's/agency's agent, even though their license is not cancelled, an agent with an inactive license is not permitted to solicit or transact insurance.
Persons looking for insurance need to transact directly with the insurance company (such as 21st Century Auto) or they need to transact through an agent (captive or independent). It's the agent who needs an active license.
Having said all this, there are people out there who transact insurance, collect money from people for insurance, issue evidence of insurance to those persons who wrote checks or handed over cash, and then pocket the money leaving the person uncovered. Some actually have insurance licenses, others do not.
Most people NEVER contact the insurance company to determine whether they have a valid policy or not. Then, when they actually have a claim and call the insurance company, they discover the sad truth. It begins a whole investigation process, and the "agent" is eventually caught and convicted. But the fact is, with no insurance no claim is payable.
Add your comment