"competency, thoroughness, and integrity"

"unparalleled understanding of life insurance products:

"a very credible and persuasive witness"

"an impressive level of insurance expertise"

A qualified expert providing life insurance company product consulting services to the insurance and legal services industries.

Specializing in these Life Insurance company product consulting services:

  • Marketing, Training & Sales Support
  • Product Design & Development
  • Expert Witness on Litigation Matters

For more details on the services available, please visit the Services page.

Contact Theodore E. Affleck via email, phone, or letter as the initial step in the process of determining if he would be a suitable expert / resource for your company.


Mr. Affleck has learned of the settlement of a class action lawsuit that he has been involved with since 2002. It addresses a life insurance company’s treatment of the cash values underlying its block of participating annuity policies. In the mid 1980s, the company had developed a new current rate annuity policy to be sold to new customers to stem the tide of surrenders that were occurring during a period of high interest rates. The annuity cash values, as well as the huge block of life insurance cash values, had occupied a long-term, well-diversified portfolio that had contributed to this company’s excellent track record of annual dividends to its participating products.

Theodore E. Affleck, CLU & Associates, LLC

403 Cedar Street

Newington, CT

Phone: 860.667.7232

Email: taffleckclu@aol.com

Latest News Continued

The new current rate annuity policy required a completely different investment strategy that was in much shorter-term, fixed-income investments (with no equities), designed to recognize changes in interest rates much more quickly (quarterly, sometimes even monthly). The company’s consultant on the project recommended the new current rate annuity product, with its totally different investment strategy, be offered to existing annuity policy owners in a manner not at all unlike what the company had done with prior product enhancements.

But a key part of the consultant’s recommendation also had the company allowing those existing policy owners to stay right where they were, i.e., with the same long-term, well-diversified portfolio that they had been in all along, and that had contributed to the company’s excellent track record of participating policy dividends. Nevertheless, by the time the company started offering the new current rate annuity product to new customers in 1985, interest rates had decreased, which had already stemmed the tide of surrenders.

The company stopped selling the existing annuity product and introduced the new current rate annuity product for new sales. But instead of offering to existing policy owners the choice to either stay where they were or move over to the new current rate annuity product (with its different investment strategy), the company unilaterally moved all of those cash values out of the long-term, welldiversified portfolio and into the new investment strategy of shorter term, fixed-income investments. The result for those existing annuity policies was a lower dividend, over a span of nearly 30 years, than they would have received had they been permitted to remain where they were. The plaintiff class action was an attempt to recover some portion of that shortfall.