Just in time for Halloween, here's a little something from the news wires to add another touch of lunacy to the AIG debacle. From the Duluth News-Tribune:

Duluth insurance agency fined for AIG ad

A Duluth insurance agency has agreed to pay thousands of dollars in fines for taking out an ad questioning the financial health of insurer AIG.

 The state Department of Commerce says Wednesday that insurance agent Gregory Brisky agreed to pay a $2,000 fine. His agency, the Dwight Swanstrom Co., agreed to pay a $3,000 fine.

 The department says the agency took out a newspaper ad soliciting AIG customers who might be “nervous” about their insurance company in an attempt to get them to switch insurers.

 American International Group was bailed out last month when the federal government offered it an $85 billion loan during the ongoing credit crisis.

 The Commerce Department says it has affirmed the financial solvency of AIG's insurance companies, despite the troubles with the parent company.

 It's against Minnesota law to make misleading statements on the financial condition of any insurer.

 Brisky says he has no comment

I tried to reach the agent to get his side of the story, but had no luck (not surprisingly). What's really ironic is the same day this little item appeared, pressure from New York AG Cuomo forced AIG to freeze $600 million in deferred compensation for the brain trust of executives that got them into this mess in the first place.

Naturally, agents have to be careful with what they say, or run the risk of violating local law. The New York State Insurance Department, for example, has issued a number of warnings about licensed producers attempting to cash in on AIG's troubles, reminding them there are laws against:

• misleading statements or misrepresentations regarding an insurer's financial condition;
• incomplete comparisons intended to induce policy replacement; and
• any advertisement or other public announcement about an insurer's financial condition, unless it conforms to the specific requirements of law.

AA&B's legal guru Barry Zalma calls the agent's efforts “a violation of a local law and a stupid attempt to gain business…E&O does not cover, nor should it cover, criminal or other intentionally wrongful acts.” And our “Avoiding E&O” columnist Louie Castoria, an attorney with Wilson Elser, says, “This issue came up yesterday at the Credit Crisis presentation I gave in Portland to the Oregon Surplus Line Assn. The E&O problem with dissing AIG, apart from factual inaccuracy, is that if you play on people's fears and they swith to a non-admitted insurer, they won't have the state insurance guaranty fund as a fallback. There are also the usual problems with switching: advancing retro dates, changes in primary coverage that may effect excess layers, etc. In general, a broker should view switching carriers with suspicion, just as a mortgage lender today should be somewhat skeptical of a re-fi. Bottom line: Does it create a material benefit for the borrower?”

However, I can't say that I blame the Duluth agent for trying to (literally) scare up a little business in the wake of the AIG mess, although obviously one has to stay within the limits of the law. And the story does raise the legitimate issue of how to assuage policyholder concerns during these unprecedented times.

I'd be interested to hear from any of our readers about whether their customers have expressed concerns about their coverage with AIG (or any other insurer, for that matter) and how you're responding to them.