Two Georgia producers each see a client replace an existing policy. The first presents an accurate side-by-side comparison of costs and benefits, and the client chooses to replace. The second exaggerates the new policy's dividends to persuade the client to surrender the old one. Under Georgia law:

Why C is correct

O.C.G.A. § 33-6-4(b)(2) makes twisting turn on the misrepresentation, not on the fact of replacement. Replacing coverage after an honest comparison is lawful; the second producer's exaggerated dividend claims are a misrepresentation made to induce surrender, which is precisely the conduct the statute targets. Georgia therefore protects a client's freedom to switch coverage while punishing deception used to force the switch.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Only the second producer used misrepresentation; the first engaged in lawful, accurate comparison.
• B) The client's signature does not immunize deceptive inducement; the statute reaches the producer's conduct regardless of consent.
• D) Replacement itself is not prohibited in Georgia; the violation requires a misrepresentation to induce the lapse or surrender.

Memory hook

Honest comparison is fine; inflated dividends to force a swap are twisting.