A producer in Aurora gives a policyholder a written, factual comparison of two life policies that permits an informed decision, and the policyholder later lapses the old policy. Under C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(a), this conduct is:

Why B is correct

C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(a) prohibits misrepresenting benefits, dividends, or policy terms and misrepresenting facts to induce a lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion, or surrender — the Colorado twisting prohibition. However, the statute expressly permits a written, factual policy comparison that permits the policyholder to make an informed decision, so this producer's conduct is lawful.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Defamation under C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(c) concerns false or maliciously critical statements about the financial condition of another insurer, not a factual comparison.
• C) A lapse that follows an informed decision based on accurate written facts is not inducement by misrepresentation; twisting requires misrepresented facts.
• D) Rebating under C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(g) concerns returning premiums or giving benefits not specified in the contract, which a written comparison is not.

Memory hook

Facts in writing, decision informed — no violation; lies or pressure to lapse are twisting.