Call 303-309-3471 Advisors: get contracted with SRS →Get a Quote

Case Placement: Standard Non-Tobacco After Three Carrier Declines

Underwriter reviewing medical and financial data with a client during risk assessment

Three carriers turned this case down before the fourth one said yes — and offered better than expected. Here’s how a client with thyroid nodules and carotid stenosis went from three straight declines to a Standard Non-Tobacco offer.

Key takeaways

  • Multiple overlapping findings on paper often get declined by carriers that underwrite off diagnosis codes alone.
  • A specialist’s follow-up findings — clinically insignificant nodules, stable carotid stenosis — can change the outcome entirely.
  • Matching a case to the right carrier can turn a decline into a Standard offer.

Three carriers declined or rated this case at Table D and Table 3 before a fourth carrier evaluated the full clinical picture and offered Standard Non-Tobacco.

The situation

The client was a 58-year-old male, non-smoker, seeking $1 million of universal life coverage. A comprehensive routine physical a year earlier had turned up mild carotid stenosis and a single thyroid nodule on ultrasound. His other medical history included neuropathy, mild osteoarthritis, and acid reflux. A follow-up thyroid ultrasound six months later found new nodules — too small to biopsy. A specialist ordered additional imaging and determined the nodules were clinically insignificant; no biopsies were ultimately needed.

Why this case was hard to place

On paper, this is exactly the kind of file that gets declined by carriers unwilling to dig past the surface-level diagnosis codes: multiple overlapping findings (carotid stenosis, evolving thyroid nodules, neuropathy) without a single carrier fully underwriting the clinical picture as a whole. That’s exactly what happened. Carrier #1 declined to offer at all. Carrier #2 came back at a Table D. Carrier #3 offered a Table 3 — still a meaningful flat extra and a hard sell to the client.

The solution

Rather than accepting the Table 3 as the ceiling, we took the case to a fourth carrier with underwriters willing to evaluate the specialist’s follow-up findings on their own terms — a clinically insignificant thyroid nodule with no biopsy required, and mild, stable carotid stenosis, not a progressive or high-risk presentation.

The result

Carrier #4 offered Standard Non-Tobacco — the best possible outcome for this profile, and a dramatic swing from the Table 3 the client would have settled for elsewhere. The difference wasn’t the medical file; it was which carrier’s underwriters actually read it.

If you have a client sitting on a decline or a heavy table rating because of overlapping or ambiguous findings, that’s exactly the kind of case our underwriting team is built to re-shop. Send us the file — we’ll find the carrier that reads it the way it deserves to be read.

Frequently asked questions

Why would four carriers give four different offers on the same file?

Carriers vary widely in how they underwrite overlapping or ambiguous findings, especially when a diagnosis code alone doesn’t capture the full clinical picture. A specialist’s follow-up notes and imaging results can change the offer dramatically — but only if the carrier’s underwriters actually weigh them.

Is it worth re-shopping a case after a decline or a heavy table rating?

Often, yes. A decline or a high table from one carrier doesn’t mean the case is uninsurable at a reasonable rate — it may just mean that carrier didn’t fully evaluate the clinical detail. Cases like this one, which moved from a Table 3 offer to Standard Non-Tobacco, show how much the outcome can depend on where the case is placed.

50+ Years in Business60+ Top-Rated Carriers★★★★★ Rated by Advisors

Reviewed by Tim Fuller on 2026-09-23

Tim Fuller, President of SRS Inc.

Tim Fuller

President, SRS Inc.

Tim leads SRS Inc., a full-service IMO (Independent Marketing Organization) and BGA (Brokerage General Agency) connecting independent financial professionals with life, annuity, disability income, and long-term care solutions from 60+ carrier partners — with the impaired-risk and complex-case expertise to place business other IMOs and BGAs turn away.

Connect on LinkedIn →

We’re Here to Help

Have a question about what you just read, or a case you’re working on? Tell us a bit about what you need, and a member of the SRS team will follow up with you personally — no obligation, no hassle.

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
Please let us know what's on your mind. Have a question for us? Ask away.

Justifying Key Person Coverage Above 10x Compensation: The “Sweat Equity” Case

Underwriter reviewing medical and financial data with a client during risk assessment

A son or daughter working for below-market pay at the family business, waiting for a future ownership stake, creates a real and measurable coverage need — even though underwriters are often trained to be skeptical of anything tied to an inheritance that “might never happen.” Here’s how to make that case.

Key takeaways

  • The standard 10x-compensation formula for key person coverage breaks down for a family member paid below market rate.
  • Carriers won’t count a hypothetical future inheritance toward coverage — but they can recognize today’s below-market pay gap.
  • Framing the case around present, measurable facts, not future ownership, is what gets it underwritten.

The gap between what an underpaid family-business heir is paid and what their role is actually worth is a real, current financial need — not a bet on a future inheritance.

The underwriting problem

Key person coverage is typically justified using a multiple of compensation — often around ten times salary. That formula works fine for most key employees, but it breaks down for the “underpaid key kid” who’s taking less than market rate today because they expect to inherit or eventually own the business.

Underwriters are right to be cautious about building future ownership into a net worth calculation. Carriers generally won’t let a second generation count an anticipated inheritance toward the coverage they can buy to pay future estate taxes, because that inheritance might never materialize. That’s a reasonable position — hope of future ownership doesn’t create a present financial need on its own.

Why this case is different

The “sweat equity on the come” scenario isn’t about counting a hypothetical future inheritance. It’s about three present, measurable facts: the son or daughter is taking less compensation than their work is worth; the business is getting their services at a below-market rate; and replacing them with someone not motivated by future ownership would cost more than what’s currently being paid. That gap between what they’re paid and what their role is actually worth is a real, current financial need — not a contingency on whether the inheritance ever happens.

Making the case to underwriters

The key is separating the two arguments. An underwriter is right to reject “insure me for more because I’ll inherit the business someday.” But “insure this key person for more than ten times their stated compensation because their real economic value to the business exceeds their pay” is a different, and much stronger, argument — one that should factor into the financial underwriting process regardless of whether the future ownership transfer ever occurs.

Bringing us a case like this

If you have a client with a key person case that doesn’t fit the standard compensation-multiple formula — a family business successor, a founder’s child, or any key employee being paid below market in exchange for future equity — that’s exactly the kind of case our underwriting team is built to help you place.

Frequently asked questions

Why won’t carriers count a future inheritance toward key person coverage?

Carriers generally won’t build an anticipated inheritance or ownership transfer into a net worth or coverage calculation because it isn’t guaranteed to occur. That’s a different issue, though, from a key person’s current below-market compensation, which is a present, measurable financial fact.

How do you justify key person coverage above the standard 10x compensation multiple?

By showing the gap between what the key person is currently paid and what their role and services are actually worth in the market — including the higher cost of replacing them with someone who isn’t motivated by future ownership. That gap represents a real, current financial need independent of whether any future ownership transfer occurs.

50+ Years in Business60+ Top-Rated Carriers★★★★★ Rated by Advisors

Reviewed by Tim Fuller on 2026-09-23

Tim Fuller, President of SRS Inc.

Tim Fuller

President, SRS Inc.

Tim leads SRS Inc., a full-service IMO (Independent Marketing Organization) and BGA (Brokerage General Agency) connecting independent financial professionals with life, annuity, disability income, and long-term care solutions from 60+ carrier partners — with the impaired-risk and complex-case expertise to place business other IMOs and BGAs turn away.

Connect on LinkedIn →

We’re Here to Help

Have a question about what you just read, or a case you’re working on? Tell us a bit about what you need, and a member of the SRS team will follow up with you personally — no obligation, no hassle.

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
Please let us know what's on your mind. Have a question for us? Ask away.

Disability Buy-Out Placement for a $33M Commodities Firm Buy-Sell

Professional working confidently at her desk, representing disability income protection

The CEO’s share value had grown 250% since the buy-sell agreement was last updated — and the board realized their disability buy-out coverage hadn’t kept pace. Here’s how we closed a $33 million gap before it became a problem.

Key takeaways

  • Buy-sell agreements can quietly fall out of date as a company’s value grows, leaving disability coverage underfunded.
  • A disability buy-out policy pays a lump sum matched to the buy-sell agreement’s trigger language if a key owner becomes disabled.
  • Reviewing buy-sell coverage against current valuation — not the valuation at signing — is what catches gaps like this one.

The CEO’s share value grew 250% since the buy-sell agreement was last funded — and the board closed the resulting $33 million disability buy-out gap for roughly $110,000 a year.

The client

A large Texas-based firm operating in grain, energy, freight, and other commodities.

The situation

The client’s buy-sell agreement had failed to keep pace with the company’s rapid growth. As the business expanded, the CEO’s share value increased by 250% since the agreement was last funded, and the insurance portfolio protecting the shareholders needed a significant increase to match. The board, made up of a dozen shareholders, determined that a disabling event affecting the CEO could cripple the company without adequate disability buy-out coverage in place, and set a target of $33 million in coverage to fulfill the buy-sell obligation.

The solution

We placed a disability buy-out policy funded to a $33 million limit, structured to pay a lump sum benefit if the CEO became disabled, under the definitions and trigger language of the disability repurchase clause in the buy-sell agreement. The annual premium came in at roughly $110,000 plus taxes and fees — a fraction of the exposure it protected against.

The result

The board now has a buy-sell agreement backed by coverage that actually matches the current value of the business, closing a gap that had been quietly widening as the company grew. If the CEO were to become disabled, the company and remaining shareholders have the funding in place to execute the buyout without a forced sale or a cash crunch.

Four questions worth asking every business-owner client

For productive succession-planning conversations, we suggest asking clients or prospects: Do you know the current value of your business? Do you have a buy-sell agreement in place? Has that agreement been revisited since any change in company value, or since partners were added or removed? And without a buy-sell agreement, are you aware you could end up in business with a partner’s spouse if that partner dies or becomes disabled?

If you have a client whose buy-sell agreement hasn’t been revisited since their business changed in value, that’s a case we can help you review and place.

Frequently asked questions

What is disability buy-out insurance?

It’s a policy that pays a lump sum, or sometimes installments, to fund the purchase of a disabled owner’s share of a business under a buy-sell agreement, so the remaining owners can complete the buyout without a forced sale or cash shortfall.

How often should a buy-sell agreement’s funding be reviewed?

Whenever the business’s value changes meaningfully, or when partners are added or removed. In this case, the CEO’s share value had grown 250% since the agreement was last funded, leaving a significant gap that only came to light when the board reviewed it.

50+ Years in Business60+ Top-Rated Carriers★★★★★ Rated by Advisors

Reviewed by Tim Fuller on 2026-09-23

Tim Fuller, President of SRS Inc.

Tim Fuller

President, SRS Inc.

Tim leads SRS Inc., a full-service IMO (Independent Marketing Organization) and BGA (Brokerage General Agency) connecting independent financial professionals with life, annuity, disability income, and long-term care solutions from 60+ carrier partners — with the impaired-risk and complex-case expertise to place business other IMOs and BGAs turn away.

Connect on LinkedIn →

We’re Here to Help

Have a question about what you just read, or a case you’re working on? Tell us a bit about what you need, and a member of the SRS team will follow up with you personally — no obligation, no hassle.

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
Please let us know what's on your mind. Have a question for us? Ask away.

Why a Down Market Is the Best Time to Talk About Long-Term Care

Adult daughter and her aging mother sharing a warm moment while discussing long-term care planning

It sounds backwards: when markets are down is exactly when long-term care planning matters most, not least. Here’s why, and how to bring it up with clients before a market downturn forces the conversation.

Key takeaways

  • A written LTC plan protects both against the cost of care and against the portfolio being drawn down to pay for it.
  • The need for LTC planning doesn’t move with the market, even though client attention to it usually does.
  • Reallocating a small portion of an existing portfolio can put a plan in place before a downturn forces the issue.

A long-term care event forces clients to liquidate assets at a loss at exactly the moment markets are already down — a hybrid LTC plan protects against both risks at once.

The counterintuitive case

A well thought-out, written plan for long-term care does two things at once: it protects clients against the cost of a future LTC event, and it protects the savings and investments they already have. When markets are down, that second benefit matters more than usual. This protection extends to financial planners and RIAs too, since it helps them keep assets under management rather than watching them systematically depleted by checks written to cover an LTC event.

What doesn’t change when the market does

Economic conditions will always shift, for better or worse — but the need to be prepared for a long-term care event doesn’t move with the market. When savings, emergency funds, and investment portfolios are already down, that’s precisely the wrong moment to be forced into liquidating assets at a loss to pay for unexpected long-term care.

Why a hybrid LTC plan fits this moment

By reallocating a small amount of an existing portfolio, clients can put a plan in place before a long-term care event forces the issue. A hybrid long-term care plan offers accessibility, flexibility, and dependability, and a plan built with lifetime protection adds something markets can’t offer on their own right now: certainty.

If you have clients whose portfolios have taken a hit and who could use a way to protect what’s left of their savings from a future LTC event, that’s a conversation we can help you start. Reach out and we’ll walk through how to position it.

Frequently asked questions

Why is a down market actually a good time to buy long-term care coverage?

Because an LTC event that happens while a portfolio is already down forces clients to liquidate assets at a loss to cover the cost. Putting LTC protection in place ahead of time protects the remaining portfolio from that scenario, regardless of when the LTC event occurs.

What makes a hybrid LTC plan different from traditional LTC insurance?

A hybrid plan typically combines long-term care benefits with life insurance or annuity components, offering accessibility and flexibility if care is never needed, along with the dependability of lifetime protection if it is.

50+ Years in Business60+ Top-Rated Carriers★★★★★ Rated by Advisors

Reviewed by Tim Fuller on 2026-09-23

Tim Fuller, President of SRS Inc.

Tim Fuller

President, SRS Inc.

Tim leads SRS Inc., a full-service IMO (Independent Marketing Organization) and BGA (Brokerage General Agency) connecting independent financial professionals with life, annuity, disability income, and long-term care solutions from 60+ carrier partners — with the impaired-risk and complex-case expertise to place business other IMOs and BGAs turn away.

Connect on LinkedIn →

We’re Here to Help

Have a question about what you just read, or a case you’re working on? Tell us a bit about what you need, and a member of the SRS team will follow up with you personally — no obligation, no hassle.

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
Please let us know what's on your mind. Have a question for us? Ask away.