A producer in Aurora is replacing a client's existing sickness and accident policy and gives the client a written, factual comparison of the old and new policies that permits an informed decision. Under Colorado law, this comparison is:

Why C is correct

C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(a) prohibits misrepresenting benefits or terms to induce lapse, forfeiture, exchange, or surrender of a policy — the Colorado twisting hook — but expressly exempts a written, factual policy comparison that permits an informed decision. Honest side-by-side comparisons are therefore lawful sales tools, while misstating the old policy's benefits or the new policy's terms to force a replacement remains a violation the Colorado Division of Insurance can penalize.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Rebating under C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(g) involves giving premium or value back to the insured; a factual comparison involves neither.
• B) No statute requires prior Commissioner approval for written policy comparisons; the lawfulness turns on accuracy and completeness.
• D) Colorado law treats comparisons as misrepresentation only when they are false or misleading — an informed-decision comparison is expressly protected.

Memory hook

Facts on paper protect you; fibs on paper convict you.