Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Structured Settlements 4Real

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Litigation

: Structured Settlements 4Real

What Do 4structures.com, LLC and Forge Consulting Have in Common?

By John Darer

ADVERTISEMENTS

Check this out! I can praise as well as I can bash.

In this post I would like to acknowledge that besides sharing a current or former client (or two), 4structures.com, LLC and Forge Consulting, LLC now share compliance with New York Insurance Law § 2122(b) entitled "advertising by insurance agents and brokers" The statute provides:

"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)

A quick survey of structured settlement websites shows that 4structures.com, LLC and Forge Consulting may be the ONLY ones actually in compliance with the statute.

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?

http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2009/05/a-number-of-structured-settlement-industry-websites-continue-to-skirt-new-york-insurance-law.html

**Of course I could just mind my own business, 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?"

Given that about 4 months have now passed since the letter to Durbin and RIcci and the inexplicable fact that member websites represented by members of the NSSTA Board of Directors are still not in compliance with the New York statute, despite 4 prior notices, the simplicity of bringing a web site into compliance, the advertised code of ethics, the lack of notice to its members provided by NSSTA, the relevant Board members and the other non compliant folks go into this week's Structured Settlement Advertising Wall of Shame.