Oxford, Connecticut-based financial advisor Nancy Daoud Ameriprise. She has a bad reputation for advising customers to purchase insurance policies that are inappropriate for them. Her office can be reached at 203-881-5504 or 90 Oxford Rd, Oxford, CT 06748.
Read on for an inside look at the many client and legal battles she’s had to fight. With this knowledge, you’ll be able to make a more educated judgment about whether or not to collaborate with her.
Cases involving Nancy Daoud Ameriprise and the law:
Nancy Daoud Ameriprise’s advice on money matters should be disregarded. Many of this financial advisor’s clients have been dissatisfied with her inappropriate suggestions.
They had no notion that Nancy Daoud Ameriprise was engaging in unethical practices to absolve herself of blame.
Her extensive history of legal conflicts includes the following:
A client of Nancy Daoud Ameriprise’s first argued that their $100,000 variable universal life policy wasn’t appropriate for them in 1998. They put in a cancellation request with the insurance provider.
Nancy Daoud and her company flatly rejected the request, maintaining that their advice was the best course of action given the client’s stated priorities. As a result of the releases they sign at the outset of their professional relationship with their fiduciary, clients have a very low chance of winning such disputes.
This is a common strategy used by dishonest financial counselors, and you’ll discover that Nancy Daoud has employed it numerous times.
Conflict Number Two
This conflict started in the year 2003. In this case, the client claimed that the life insurance policy they had purchased in 2002 was not suitable for their needs and asked for a refund of their premium payments.
They wanted to be compensated $32,800. But the company shot down the client’s claim, maintaining that the advice given by the advisor was appropriate. After deducting the insurance premium amount, the company issued a refund.
Conflict No. 3
This conflict occurred in 2009. In this case, the customer filed a complaint with the Connecticut Insurance Department, claiming that the variable universal life insurance policy she had purchased in May 2000 was inappropriate for her because of the level of risk she was willing to take.
She claimed she should be compensated $53,902.51. The company, following suit with its first two denials, said that the advisor had provided an appropriate suggestion. In addition, they insisted that the client had signed the necessary documentation indicating that she was aware of all the fees.
Because of this, you should be very careful about who you choose to collaborate with. These countless conflicts are evidence that greedy advisors like Nancy Daoud Ameriprise utilize illegal and unethical methods to trap their clients in adverse conditions.
Argument Four
The client filed a claim in 2010 alleging that the VUL policies they had opened in May 2007 were inadequate to their needs. They wanted $29,860.11 in compensation.
The company, once again, has refuted this charge, insisting that its wares are genuine and well-suited to the client’s aims. The company further insisted that the client was aware of the surrender fees because they had been explained to them before the transaction.
Argument 5
In this 2011 lawsuit, the client claimed that she had not been informed of the illiquid character of the North American REIT she had purchased in April 2008. She was seeking monetary compensation of $50,000.
This assertion was refuted by Nancy Daoud Ameriprise, but she did not explain. The FINRA BrokerCheck record provides no additional details on the controversy.
Argument 6
On December 23, 2013, this disagreement emerged. In this case, the client claimed they were not given adequate information about the risks associated with their November 2013 purchases of a business development firm and a real estate investment trust. The sum of $241,035.32 was claimed by the plaintiff.
Like the rest of them, Nancy and her company refuted this accusation. She has dismissed the client’s assertion that they were given insufficient information, but she hasn’t said why.
As noted previously, the numerous releases you are required to sign when working with the advisor make it incredibly difficult for such disagreements to settle in the investor’s favor. It doesn’t matter how much bad advice Nancy Daoud Ameriprise gives; she won’t be held accountable in any way.
Conflict 7
This argument is quite stimulating. In 2017, the customer allegedly told his advisor he couldn’t afford insurance premiums higher than $4,000. However, he could not pay the $4,000 quarterly premium that Nancy had sold him.
They asked for damages of $25,199.43 but ended up settling for $28,223.03. The company, however, denies any wrongdoing and instead blames an internal blunder for the case’s early resolution.
Conflict 8
The last disagreement Nancy Daoud had was with this person. This is an action by the New York State Department of Financial Services to enforce financial regulations. They claimed that the sale of an insurance policy by an agent of a company not licensed to do business in New York violated the state’s insurance laws
The state agency also claimed that the life insurance replacement requirements of Regulation 60 were not met. Stipulation and Consent were used to settle the regulatory action.
In the end, Nancy Daoud Ameriprise had to fork over $2,000 in fines to the government for several infractions. Like the last disagreement, she claimed that it was due to an administrative mistake.
Conclusion
Expert financial counselors like Nancy Daoud Ameriprise rarely have to deal with legal disputes, yet she has had eight in her career. These revelations show her to be careless and self-interested.
If you care about your future and financial stability, you should keep a safe distance from such advisors.
You may also read- https://www.repdigger.com/validus-news/
