Legislation Archives - McKennon Law Group

The California Department of Insurance Recently Created a Long-Term Care Insurance Task Force, But It Will Not Solve Insurer Claim Denials

According to the California Department of Insurance, most Californians cannot afford nursing home care – at an average cost of $6,000 per month – and are worried about the cost of growing older. Purchasing a long-term care insurance policy is one solution to this dilemma facing an aging California population. Long-term care insurance can be invaluable to elderly persons who can no longer care for themselves. These insurance policies typically cover nursing home costs and in-home care at your own residence if you are unable to care for yourself. But even if you are one of the lucky few that has LTC insurance, unfortunately, we regularly see long-term care insurers that do not honor their policy obligations.

The California legislature recently created a Long-Term Care Insurance Task Force within the Department of Insurance. California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara just appointed six members to the Task Force with preeminent credentials. The Task Force will explore how to design a statewide affordable long-term care insurance program including whether an increase in payroll taxes might allow for the program to be publicly subsidized. An article on the Task Force is copied below. You can learn more about the Task Force at http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0500-about-us/03-appointments/ltcitf.cfm#about.

Hopefully, the Task Force will result in long-term care insurers honoring their contract obligations more frequently. That is doubtful in our opinion. That is not the goal of the Task Force. Moreover, insurers are in the business of making money. To do that successfully, an insurer must take your premiums and pay out as little in claims as possible. In our experience, Department of Insurance actions usually do not change an insurer’s conduct in a particular claim.

So, what should you do if your long-term care insurer wrongfully denies your claim? Relying on this new Task Force will not change your claim denial, and the Task Force is not even scheduled to create a potentially publicly subsidized long-term care insurance program for several years. You should hire an experienced California insurance bad faith or ERISA lawyer to represent you. If your claim for long-term care, long-term disability, life, accidental death, retirement or health benefits has been denied, you can call (949) 387-9595 for a free consultation with the attorneys of the McKennon Law Group PC, several of whom previously represented insurance companies and are exceptionally experienced in handling both ERISA insurance claims and non-ERISA California insurance bad faith claims.

Commissioner Lara Appoints Members to the California Long Term Care Insurance Task Force

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara today announced his six appointments to the new Long Term Care Insurance Task Force, established within the California Department of Insurance by legislation that he strongly supported to help address the long-term care services and insurance needs of older Californians.

“Our new Long Term Care Insurance Task Force will explore greater options for Californians to help them age with dignity and security,” said Commissioner Lara. “With their deep experience in insurance, culturally competent care and services, and the health needs of older Californians, these Task Force members are ready for the challenge of envisioning a statewide insurance program that is sustainable and meets the needs of our growing diverse population. The health disparities exposed by the current pandemic on our aging population and the services and supports they will need in coming years make this Task Force even more critical today.”

Created by the legislative passage and Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of AB 567 (Calderon, Chapter 746, Statutes of 2019), the Task Force will, under Commissioner Lara’s leadership, explore how a statewide long-term care insurance program could be designed and implemented to expand the options for people who are interested in insuring themselves should they encounter functional or cognitive disability that requires long-term care, services, and supports. The 15-member Task Force includes the Insurance Commissioner, who will serve as its Chair, as well as the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) or his designee, the Director of the California Department of Aging or her designee, six individuals appointed by the Commissioner, four individuals appointed by the Governor, one appointment made by the Speaker of the Assembly, and one appointment made by the Senate Committee on Rules.

“The lack of affordable long-term care is a serious threat to the well-being of many Californians, and yet another symptom of the systemic inequities in our health and social support systems,” said DHCS Director Will Lightbourne. “I’m pleased to join this task force and work on solutions that will increase access to long-term care and help provide healthy and dignified lives for our aging populations.”

“Affording the care we need as we age, so we can live where we choose in the community, is a top priority for the thousands of Californians we heard from in developing the Governor’s Master Plan for Aging, released in January,” said California Department of Aging Director Kim McCoy Wade. “Innovative public private leadership and partnership, such as this new Task Force provides, are essential to developing effective and equitable solutions. I’m eager to work with Commissioner Lara and members of the Task Force to move this important work forward.”

Over the next two years, the Task Force will meet to discuss establishing a statewide long-term care insurance program and prepare a feasibility report for the Commissioner, the Governor, and the Legislature by January 1, 2023. The recommendations made by the Task Force in the feasibility report will then be analyzed in an actuarial report to ensure an adequate benefit within a solvent program which, if approved by the Task Force, will be submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2024.

The first meeting of the inaugural Task Force is expected in early spring 2021. More details are available at http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0500-about-us/03-appointments/ltcitf.cfm.

# # #

Media Notes:

Newly appointed members include:

Dr. Lucy Andrews, is Director of Nursing and CEO for At Your Service Nursing and Home Care. Dr. Andrews presently serves as Board Chair for the California Association for Health Services at Home (CAHSAH) and is the former Vice Chair of the National Association for Home Care and Hospice in Washington, DC. She is also a recipient of the Lois Lillick Award, which honors advocacy and expertise in the home care industry. Dr. Andrews joins the Task Force as a representative of hospice and palliative care providers.

Grace Cheng Braun, MSPH is President and CEO of WISE & Healthy Aging, which administers the City & County of Los Angeles’ Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (the largest Ombudsman program in the state, and second in the nation) and Elder Abuse Prevention Services. The community-based, nonprofit social services organization also operates two adult day care centers and other care coordination and enrichment programming for older adults and caregivers of the elderly in Los Angeles. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of both the Los Angeles Alliance for Community Health and Aging (LAACHA) and the Westside Older Adult Services Network, which promotes health and service equity in the Los Angeles community. Cheng Braun joins the Task Force as a representative of adult day services providers.

Michael Mejia is Senior Vice President, Operations for Atria Senior Living where he leads Atria’s operations in the Western U.S. and currently oversees operations at 43 Atria communities in California, including 33 with memory care neighborhoods. He joined Atria in 1998 and since then has overseen operations in Texas and Kansas as Regional Vice President and served as Senior Vice President previously in the Central, Southeast, and Southwest divisions. He is also a member of the California Assisted Living Association (CALA) Board of Directors. Mejia joins the Task Force as a representative of residential care facilities for the elderly.

Doug Moore is the Executive Director of the United Domestic Workers of America (UDW/AFSCME Local 3930) which represents more than 140,000 In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers and family child care providers across California. Moore also serves as International Vice President of AFSCME. He was appointed by the State Assembly to the California Task Force on Family Caregiving in 2017. In 2019, he was appointed to the Governor’s Task Force on Alzheimer’s Prevention and Preparedness. Moore joins the Task Force as a representative of independent providers of in-home personal care services.

Dr. Karl Steinberg, M.D., C.M.D., has been a skilled nursing facility and hospice medical director in San Diego County for over 25 years and cares for patients in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and small board-and-care facilities. He is President-Elect of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, a national organization representing physicians and medical directors working in various post-acute and long-term care settings, and is a delegate to the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association. Dr. Steinberg joins the Task Force as a representative of long-term care health professionals.

Tiffany Whiten is Senior Government Advocate at SEIU California State Council where she oversees and coordinates state legislative and administrative policy development on many SEIU-California policy priorities, including assisted living, IHSS, nursing homes, adult day care, developmentally disabled, and other long-term care sectors as well as racial and social justice issues. She not only represents and advocates on behalf of long-term care providers, workers, and consumers, but is also a family caregiver to her mother with Alzheimer’s. Whiten’s previous roles include working as an Associate with Niemela Pappas and Associates, a Consultant for Senator Mark DeSaulnier, a Legislative Aide to Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, and a Legislative Aide to Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata. Whiten joins the Task Force as a representative of family caregivers.

Nine consumer protection bills sponsored by insurance commissioner signed into law in 2014

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced that during the 2014 legislative session that Governor Jerry Brown signed nine bills sponsored by the California Department of Insurance (“CDI”). A bill that adds protections for small businesses that took effect in 2014 and five other consumer protection bills that were implemented January 1, 2015. Here is a list of them (taken from a CDI bulletin):

SB 1273, authored by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) – Low Cost Auto Insurance Expansion

The signing of SB 1273 was the single most important action taken this year to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on our roads. The law enhances the California Low Cost Auto program by allowing more low-income individuals the opportunity to purchase low cost auto insurance, most importantly the estimated 1.4 million newly-licensed undocumented individuals who may apply for licenses starting January 2015.

AB 1804, authored by Assembly Member Henry Perea (D-Fresno) – Back-up contact

Requires insurers to provide consumers the option to designate a third party as a back-up contact and receive notification from their insurance carrier if their policy is in danger of lapsing, expiring, being terminated or canceled due to nonpayment of premium. This new law benefits both insurers and consumers by promoting continual insurance among automobile, homeowners and disability income insurance policyholders, especially seniors and members of the military who move often or are deployed, and may unintentionally have their policies terminated due to nonpayment. This will take effect January 1, 2016.

SB 1446, authored by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Small business protections

This small employer health coverage urgency bill is a victory for all California small businesses. The new law provides small employers who need time to transition to Affordable Care Act compliant policies additional time to make the transition. Small employers with non-grandfathered health insurance coverage purchased by December 31, 2013 have the option to renew their existing coverage for one year, rather than be required to move to new coverage by December 2014.

AB 2056, authored by Assembly Member Matthew Dababneh (D-Encino) – Pet insurance

Under AB 2056 pet insurers are required to disclose important information regarding their policies, standardize definitions and provide consumers with a 30-day free look period. As of July 1, 2015, pet insurers will be required to disclose baseline information regarding their policies such as reimbursement benefits, pre-existing condition limitations and a clear explanation of limitations of coverage including coinsurance, waiting periods, deductibles and annual or lifetime policy limits.

AB 2347, authored by Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Annuity disclosures

Consumer protection and helping seniors avoid possible financial hardship is paramount to the mission of the Department of Insurance. Seniors now have more protection with the new annuity disclosure requirements provided by AB 2347. The new law requires disclosure language on the front of the policy jacket or on the cover sheet for an immediate annuity that aligns with the disclosure language already required for the more common deferred annuity products. This bill will go into effect July 1, 2015.

AB 2128, authored by Assembly Member Richard Gordon (D-Menlo Park) – Community development investments

Reforms the California Organized Investment Network (COIN) Program to better focus on finding and facilitating insurance industry investments that provide economic and social benefits to California’s underserved communities. The new law requires insurers who write $100 million or more in California premium to provide information to the commissioner, by July 1, 2016, on all of its community development investments, including infrastructure and green investments, as well as streamlining reporting requirements. This bill also clarifies an important element of the law authorizing the insurance commissioner to survey insurers’ supplier diversity efforts, which is part of Commissioner Jones’ Insurance Diversity Initiative.

AB 2734, authored by the Assembly Committee on Insurance – Omnibus provisions

This omnibus bill clarifies and improves various sections of the Insurance Code, the body of law that provides for consumer protections and regulation of insurance companies. Specifically it provides the Locomotive Engineers and Conductors Mutual Protection Association (LECMPA) the authority to offer an accidental death benefit in addition to job protection insurance to their members. Railroad workers will gain an important insurance protection benefitting them and their families.

SB 1142, authored by Senate Insurance Chair Bill Monning (D-Carmel) – Insurance fraud

The law clarifies the annual fraud health and disability assessment to ensure CDI is able to continue its mission in ensuring a healthy and vibrant insurance marketplace by reducing fraud and working with local district attorneys.

AB 1234, authored by Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) – Confidentiality

Maintains the confidentiality of state investigations and examinations that monitor the financial health of insurance companies. The new law protects insurer solvency by precluding the Department of Insurance from being forced to provide sensitive financial data. This bill also clarifies an important element of the law authorizing the insurance commissioner to survey the supplier diversity efforts of insurance companies which is part of Commissioner Jones’ Insurance Diversity Initiative.

Recent Federal Cases Applying the State and Federal Mental Health Parity Acts: What Do They All Mean?

The Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MH Parity Act”) requires, at a minimum, that the financial requirements and treatment limitations for mental health benefits set by group health plans and health insurance carriers be no more restrictive than those provided for non-mental health medical benefits. The MH Parity Act was originally signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Public Health Service Act and Internal Revenue Code in 2008. Now, the MH Parity Act is at issue in an increasing number of cases and has been addressed several times by the federal courts in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111643 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) began with two parents seeking coverage for residential treatment of their minor son’s mental health condition under their Blue Shield health insurance plan, governed by ERISA. Blue Shield denied the claim, stating its policy excluded coverage of residential treatment services for severe mental health conditions. Plaintiffs brought suit alleging violation of the insurance contract and a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, but the court granted summary judgment for Blue Shield. During the appeal of this case, the Ninth Circuit issued Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 686 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2012) holding the MH Parity Act requires health plans to provide coverage for all medically necessary treatment for severe mental illness, subject to the same financial terms as imposed on coverage for physical illnesses. Plaintiffs sought to maintain a class action against Blue Shield on behalf of participants covered under Blue Shield health insurance plans, governed by ERISA, whose claims for residential treatment of mental health claims were denied. However, the court explained class certification would require individualized discovery and proof, inquiries into medical necessity and whether individual mental health conditions and treatment were covered under the California Parity Act and additional difficulties with determining damages. Ultimately, the court held Plaintiffs failed to articulate a definition of an ascertainable class, and denied the motion for class certification.

Brazil v. OPM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44856 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) involved a plaintiff who received medically necessary mental health treatment at a residential facility, but her federal health insurance plan excluded coverage for residential treatment. The Plaintiff exhausted all administrative remedies and brought suit against the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) in federal court. The court held the plaintiff cannot recover under the MH Parity Act because the OPM has sovereign immunity, and Congress did not consent to be sued under the MH Parity Act. Brazil demonstrates the MH Parity Act did not apply to federal insurance plans.

A.F. v. Providence Health Plan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109507 (D. Or. Aug. 8, 2014) involved plaintiffs who sought an order enjoining the insurer, Providence Health Plan, from excluding applied behavior analysis therapy for participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. The court granted the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment holding Providence’s “Developmental Disability Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for services relating to “developmental disabilities, developmental delays or learning disabilities” but not medical or surgical conditions, constituted a violation of the MH Parity Act and the Oregon Mental Health Parity Act.

R.H. v. Premera Blue Cross, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108503 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2014) involved a class action suit in which plaintiffs alleged Premera Blue Cross, imposed treatment limitations on applied behavior analysis and neurodevelopmental therapy when similar limitations were not applied to medical benefits in violation of Washington’s Mental Health Parity Act. Premera agreed to a settlement in which it would remove the limitations and establish a $3.5 million settlement fund to reimburse plaintiffs who were denied services under the limitation. The court approved the unopposed class settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The trend of cases reveal practical considerations some insureds may encounter in bringing suit against their health insurance company if benefits are small, and additional difficulties establishing a class action suit. However, these decisions reflect the Ninth Circuit Court’s interpretation of the MH Parity Act, its willingness to hold health insurance carriers responsible for violations and ensure that insureds who have health insurance coverage have a viable claims for violations of the MH Parity Act.

California Bans the Inclusion of Policy Provisions Giving Insurance Companies Discretionary Authority to Decide Claims

In a major victory for consumers, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes discretionary clauses – typically contained in ERISA-governed life, health and disability insurance policies/ERISA plans void and unenforceable in new or renewed policies. SB 621 was authored by Senate Insurance Committee Chair Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) and sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and was similar to AB 1686 vetoed by Governor Schwarzenengger in 2010. Discretionary clauses are provisions typically found in group life, health and disability plans that give the administrator/insurer the sole discretion to interpret the policy and to decide if a plan participant or beneficiary is entitled to plan benefits. In ERISA cases, federal courts have interpreted these clauses to give administrators/insurers a higher standard of review when courts review their decisions. This meant that the federal courts were required to give greater deference to decisions denying plan benefits under life, health or disability coverages, rather than weighing all the evidence under a “de novo” standard of review and making their own determination as to whether the insured was entitled to benefits under the policy or employee welfare benefit plan. Insurance companies and plan administrators often rely on these clauses when they deny claims, knowing that the insured must demonstrate that the insurance company acted arbitrarily/abused their discretion – typically a burden – in order to prevail in a lawsuit against them. With the passage of this new law, insurance companies and plan administrators will no longer be able to rely on discretionary clauses in an attempt to insulate their decisions from critical judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, in the future, judges will no longer be required to defer to the decision of the insurance company and plan administrator, lessening the burden placed on ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries in seeking to overturn insurance claim denials. In voicing his support for the bill, Commissioner Jones explained:

“Discretionary clauses have been increasingly relied upon by insurers to reject legitimate claims for disability insurance when a consumer becomes disabled – insurers know that many consumers will give up their claim and that those who challenge the claim denial face a very high legal burden to overcome the denial since the discretionary clause vests sole discretion in the insurer to decide if the consumer is disabled. SB 621 levels the playing field and gives consumers an even chance to prove that they are entitled to disability and other insurance, by eliminating the ‘discretionary clauses’ that insurers have been putting into their insurance policies.”

SB 621 goes into effect on January 1, 2012

New California Law Requires That Insurers and Agents Verify that an Annuity is Suitable for the Consumer

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a new law that will provide increased protection to seniors and other consumers who are interested in purchasing an annuity. AB 689, which was sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and authored by Assembly Budget Committee Chair Bob Blumenfield (D-San Fernando Valley), requires that insurers verify that an annuity purchase is suitable and appropriate for the consumer based on an evaluation of his or her age, income, financial objectives and ten other factors. The bill was unanimously passed by both the state Senate and the state Assembly.

Lawmakers felt that additional protection was necessary because many consumers have only a vague understanding of the conditions and risks associated with the purchase of an annuity. Assembly Member Blumenfield said that another reason for the new law is that annuities are often sold to seniors, who sometimes do not understand “that their money will be unavailable to them for years.” In addition, annuities are typically very expensive in the short term, a fact which is not always properly conveyed to consumers. Finally, as noted by Blumenfield, the sale of annuities is often a “breeding ground for fraud.”

Before the passage of the new law (located in the California Insurance Code, beginning at section 10509.910), agents and insurers were required to fulfill only limited requirements when selling or replacing life insurance policies and annuities. Now, insurance companies and agents must comply with very specific requirements when recommending that a consumer purchase, exchange or replace an annuity. Specifically, after evaluating 13 different suitability factors (detailed in section 10509.914(i)), an insurance company and agent can only sell an annuity if there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the [annuity] is suitable for the consumer.” See Insurance Code section 10509.915(a). The bill also requires that an insurance agent receive Insurance Commissioner-approved training before he or she can sell annuities.

McKennon Law Group PC has several cases dealing with unsuitable annuities. More often than not, annuities are not properly sold and we often find that insurance agents and insurers often do not make truthful representations about them. Although this law should help stem the tide of unsuitable annuity sales, problem annuity sales will continue to plague the insurance industry for a long time to come.

California Insurance Commissioner Jones Announces New Regulations On Annuities For Seniors

In recent years there have been many cases of insurance agents selling unsuitable annuities to members of the public, especially seniors. These annuities typically involve large premiums and very large cash surrender charges. The large cash surrender charges are often in place for at least the first five years of the annuity and usually exist because of the very large commissions that are paid to the insurance agents selling them. Also, the rates of return in the annuities are often misrepresented. Insurers and their agents also often sell unsuitable annuities as part of 412(i) plans (named by the IRS Code section which applies to them), and sometimes the IRS disallows deductions, classifying them as abusive tax shelters. In order for these annuities to be financially viable for persons or businesses buying them, the purchasers must keep them in force for many years. Because many individuals and some businesses are not in a position to keep them in force for many years, and because they do not provide flexibility, they are often grossly unsuitable for the individuals or businesses purchasing them.

On March 7, 2011, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced new regulations aimed at protecting seniors from financial abuse by those selling seniors an unsuitable annuity. Here is the press release:

“Seniors and their family members need to know that not all annuities are a good fit for their individual circumstance,” Commissioner Jones said. “While a new annuity may seem like a good idea, all too often, unsuitable annuities have cost some seniors their life savings.”

An annuity is an insurance contract that is created when an individual gives a life insurance company money which may grow on a tax-deferred basis and then can be distributed back to the owner, either immediately or over a period of time. These new regulations are an important step towards ensuring that seniors are not deceived into tying up their money in long term annuities when they cannot pay their living expenses, and are fully aware of the products they are purchasing.

The purpose of the new regulations is to require insurers to establish a system to supervise recommendations and to set forth standards and procedures for recommendations to consumers aged 65 and older that result in the sales of annuities so that the insurance needs and financial objectives of consumers at the time of the transaction are appropriately addressed. The proposed regulations are based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulations of March 2010. The regulations require insurers to establish a system to supervise the recommendations made by the insurer or by the insurers’ agent to a consumer that result in the purchase of an annuity. The regulations exempt certain transactions — direct response solicitations where there is no recommendation made based on information collected from the consumer, for instance, as well as annuities used to fund certain other investments, such as ERISA plans.

The regulations set forth duties of insurers and insurance producers that in recommending to a consumer the purchase of an annuity, or the exchange of an annuity, the producer or insurer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the consumer based on information given by the consumer about her finances and investments. The regulations make it clear that insurers and insurance agents shall not sell an annuity unless there is a reasonable basis to believe that the annuity is suitable based on the consumer’s financial needs and objectives. The regulations require insurers to establish a supervision system designed to achieve the insurers’ and the producers’ compliance with suitability standards and allow insurers to contract out the supervision function. The regulations require that all insurance producers be adequately trained pursuant to California law prior to soliciting the sale of an annuity. The regulations give the Commissioner the authority, among other things, to order an insurer to take corrective action when he determines that a violation of the regulations has occurred. The regulations also specify record-keeping requirements for producers transacting annuities. The new regulations have been filed by Commissioner Jones with the Office of Administrative Law, where they are available for public comment and review before becoming law.

Purchasing insurance and other financial products such as annuities that meet an individual’s specific needs can be challenging. Since an individual’s financial situation may change over time, it is important to review and understand any insurance policy or contract to decide if it is still appropriate. Insurance Commissioner Jones offers the following tips to seniors who are considering purchasing a new or replacement annuity policy:

•    Obtain all proposals in writing.
•    Don’t be pressured into buying any insurance product. Take enough time to review the information before making any decisions.
•    Do not sign anything you do not understand.
•    Consider having a trusted family member, friend or advisor participate in discussions concerning the purchase of any insurance product.
•    Make sure the agent, broker and insurance company are properly licensed to sell the product you are considering purchasing.
•    Make sure you receive a full disclosure of all information relating to the benefits and possible negative consequences regarding the replacement of an existing annuity.
•    Obtain a full disclosure of all surrender charges and related time frames in connection with an annuity prior to purchase.

This information provided is not all inclusive and does not negate or preempt existing California law. If a senior or anyone has questions or wishes to discuss any insurance matter, the officers at the CDI Consumer Hotline are available to help. Please call 1-800-927-HELP (4357) or visit www.insurance.ca.gov. “

For additional information about annuities, visit http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0060-information-guides/0020-life/life-insurance.cfm

Get the Answers and Assistance You Need