Commissions / Compensation - Walker v LSW

Matthew DeSantos - LSW’s Senior Vice-President of Distribution and Business Development (himself a former insurance agent) - DOC 792 p27>

(p60)

  • Q Now, I assume that the agents who sell your products are receiving some type of compensation; is that fair?
  • A Yes.
  • Q And what's the method by which they are compensated?
  • A Well, they're salesmen. In my organizations what they are compensated is dictated by the principal or owner of the agency. So they are paid in relation to sales that are made.

(p153-154p) - Commissions / Compensation / Trips / Other 

Q Yes. There's other types of compensation besides commissions provided to high-selling agents of LSW; correct?
A There are other benefits that are provided.
Q Right. So one benefit, for example, is that LSW takes them on free international trips, for example?
A Not free, no.
Q Isn't it true that LSW has conferences for its highest selling agents in places like Monte Carlo and the Caribbean?
A We have taken some of our top agents as a reward just like most sales organization do for their top agents.

2014 0423 – DOC 812 – Trial Transcript – Day 10 – Walker v LSW – 194p

Target Premium - Michael Tivilini - LSW - primarily designing products, product design 

  • Q Are you familiar with the phrase "target premium"?
    A Yes.
    Q What's the target premium?
    A Well, it kind of has multiple -- multiple uses.  It's -- primarily, it's the premium upon which the agent will earn top-level commission rate.  (p108).
  • A The other -- the other purpose of target premium is it's a premium that you'd like to get the policyholder to pay because it really would make the policy very safe. I mean, it was -- something I used to say to agents about these policies was, If you can get the policyholder to pay target premium, these will never lapse. (p109)
  • The Witness:  All right, if this is at 4 percent, do these policies still carry the target premium?  (p129)

2013 1211 – DOC 735-2 : Deposition of Michael Tivilini- Walker v LSW – 215p