G SCOTT DIDDEL is currently employed as a Broker and/or Investment Adviser at QUESTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION located at 102 SOUTHFIELD AVE, THE BOATHOUSE, STAMFORD, CT, 06902.
G SCOTT DIDDEL has worked at QUESTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION since May 01, 2015
Disclosure History
G SCOTT DIDDEL has 6 Disclosure Event(s).
Date: August 22, 2016 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENTS ALLEGE THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES THEY PURCHASED IN 2015 WERE MISREPRESENTED. Damage Amount Requested: $1,100,000.00 Settlement Amount: $1,045,138.90 Broker Comment: THE CLAIM IS BELIEVED TO HAVE NO MERIT. THIS WAS A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY SALE, NOT A SECURITIES TRANSACTION. THE CLAIMANT PURCHASED FOR HIMSELF AND THREE FAMILY MEMBERS NON-REGISTERED FIXED INDEX UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES IN 2013, AND AT THE TIME OF THE SALE HE RECEIVED A POLICY ILLUSTRATION WHICH INCLUDED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE CURRENT COSTS OF INSURANCE, AND THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM COST OF INSURANCE. IN 2016, AFTER RECEIVING AN IN FORCE POLICY ILLUSTRATION WHICH INCLUDED THESE SAME VALUES, THE CLIENT INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ILLUSTRATION DISCLOSED THAT THE POLICY COULD LAPSE BASED ON THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM COSTS OF INSURANCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CLIENT COMPLAINED DIRECTLY TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND REQUESTED A RETURN OF THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID INTO THE CONTRACT, AFTER HAVING HAD THE POLICIES FOR 2+ YEARS. CLAIMANT REFUSED TO MEET, DID NOT REPLY TO EMAILS NOR DID HE RETURN PHONE CALLS. INSURANCE COMPANY INVESTIGATED CLIENT ALLEGATIONS. RATHER THAN CONTEST THE CLIENT'S CLAIMS, THE INSURANCE COMPANY DECIDED TO REIMBURSE THE CLIENT A PORTION OF THE PREMIUMS PAID INTO THE CONTRACT. THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT CONSULTED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY PRIOR TO MAKING THE DECISION TO REIMBURSE THE PREMIUMS NOR WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SETTLEMENT.
Date: October 18, 2010 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT, UNHAPPY WITH RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND RISING COST OF INSURANCE IN VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, CHOSE TO SURRENDER POLICY IN NOVEMBER 2010, POLICY ISSUED IN 2004. SURRENDER CHARGES INCURRED IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,444.51. REP ADVISED CLIENT TO MAINTAIN THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY, AND TO KEEP HIS POLICY IN EFFECT. CLIENT INSTEAD SURRENDERED THE VUL CONTRACT." Damage Amount Requested: $10,444.51 Broker Comment: CLIENT WAS INVITED TO PERIODIC/ANNUAL POLICY REVIEWS WHICH HE DID NOT ATTEND. CLIENT WAS ADVISED THAT HIS POLICY OFFERED FLEXIBILITY FEATURES REGARDING PREMIUM OUTLAY AND FACE AMOUNT REDUCTION. CLIENT DISREGARDED THE REP'S ADVICE AND CHOSE TO VOLUNTARILY LAPSE HIS POLICY AND RECEIVED $700 CASH SURRENDER VALUE. REP DID HIS BEST TO SPEAK TO CLIENT, BUT HIS CALL WENT UNANSWERED.
Date: May 19, 2008 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT ALLEGES THAT VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE POLICY THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE SOLD TO HER WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR HER NEEDS. CLIENT ALLEGES THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HER INTO A PRODUCT THAT HAS HIGH COMMISSIONS AND FEES. CLIENT STATES THAT THERE WERE MORE APPROPRIATE INVESTMENTS FOR HER NEEDS, BUT THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PRESENT THESE TO HER. THE CLIENT DID NOT MAKE A SPECIFIC CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Broker Comment: THE COMPLAINT LETTER THAT WAS RECEIVED BY OUR FIRM WAS WRITTEN BY THE CLIENT'S HUSBAND. I CONTACTED THE CLIENT AND SHE STATED HER HUSBAND HAS AUTHORITY TO ACT ON HER BEHALF IN THIS MATTER. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN BY THE CLIENT, THE FIRM IS CONSIDERING THIS A "CONSUMER INITIATED" COMPLAINT SINCE THE HUSBAND IS ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CLIENT. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH NO DAMAGE AMOUNT WAS SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED, THE FIRM COULD NOT MAKE A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION THAT THE DAMAGES WOULD BE LESS THAN $5,000.
Date: November 13, 2007 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: AUGUST 2005, CLIENT PURCHASED VARIABLE UNIVERSAL LIFE POLICY. NOVEMBER 2007, CLIENT ALLEGED THAT SALE WAS BASED ON FALSE CLAIMS, MISLEADING SALES ILLUSTRATIONS AND INSUFFICIENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. Damage Amount Requested: $32,400.00 Settlement Amount: $31,165.07 Broker Comment: INSURANCE COMPANY INVESTIGATED CLIENT ALLEGATIONS AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF FALSE CLAIMS, MISLEADING SALES ILLUSTRATIONS OR INSUFFICIENT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS BY REPRESENTATIVE. INSURANCE COMPANY SETTLED COMPLAINT BY MAKING ONE-TIME EXCEPTION TO WAIVE SURRENDER CHARGES. CLIENT WAS PAID CURRENT ACCUMULATED CASH VALUE EQUAL TO HIS PAID-IN PREMIUMS OF $31,165.07. REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS SETTLEMENT AMOUNT.
Date: December 20, 2005 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CUSTOMER ALLEGES THAT THE VUL POLICY SOLD TO HER IN DECEMBER 2000 WAS MISREPRESENTED AND UNSUITABLE FOR HER INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES. SHE REQUESTS FULL REFUND OF PREMIUMS PAID. Damage Amount Requested: $5,147.94
Date: January 19, 2005 Category: Customer Dispute Allegations: CLIENT ALLEGES MR. DIDDEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS (BEGINNING IN 2000) WERE UNSUITABLE & RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL LOSS. ALSO ALLEGES MR. DIDDEL DIDN'T MONITOR ACCOUNT TO MANAGE RISK. Damage Amount Requested: $160,000.00
More Information
All individuals registered to sell securities or provide investment advice are required to disclose customer complaints and arbitrations, regulatory actions, employment terminations, bankruptcy filings and criminal or civil judicial proceedings.
A disclosure includes information about customer disputes, disciplinary events and financial matters on the broker's record as reported by securities regulators, the individual broker, and any involved firms. Some of these items may involve pending actions or allegations that have not been resolved or proven. The presence of a disclosure does not automatically indicate any wrongdoing.
BrokerCheck is the source of the data included in this Report. The data was compiled on June 29, 2018.
To view the full report for G SCOTT DIDDEL, click here.
The use of BrokerCheck data is subject to the BrokerCheck Terms of Use.
×
Outdated Information
If you discover any errors or outdated information on this Website, please contact us and we will promptly correct such errors or outdated information.
If BrokerCheck® is the source of such errors or outdated information, please contact FINRA at (301) 590-6500.
×
BrokerSearch Removal
Brokersearch.info will not fully remove items from this Website without an applicable court order designating them for removal. Investors rely on the information available on this Website to decide whether to choose or retain a broker or investment adviser.
Upon written request, we may remove certain page(s) from appearing in search engine results using the robots.txt protocol.
When a person searches for your name using Google, Bing, Yahoo! and other search engines the page(s) from Brokersearch.info would not appear in the search results.
Please contact us to learn more about Search Engine Removal.