A warning to agents, brokers, and employers

Before you partner with Colonial Life, Paul Revere, or Colonial Voluntary Benefits, read what happened to me.

I spent twelve years building employer relationships, commissions, renewal income, and a district through Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and the Colonial Voluntary Benefits branding used for New York business. On January 23, 2026, I was terminated immediately by email. On June 1, 2026, Paul Revere notified me that it was “now and forever” forfeiting all rights to commissions, bonuses, or other compensation.

I understood that decision to include the remaining renewal commissions I had spent years building. That renewal stream was not an employee pension, but it was the long-term income I regarded as my retirement security. Through this relationship, I had worked for it. Then it was gone.

I am a father of five. This career supported my household. I will protect my children's privacy, but I will not erase the human cost of what happened.

This is my firsthand account and my opinion, supported where identified by public filings and source documents. The defendants dispute our allegations. No statement on this site is a court finding.

Read my warning Review the court record

My recommendation

Agents and brokers: take my experience for what it is worth. I would look elsewhere.

Based on what happened to me, I would not sell Colonial Life, Paul Revere, or Colonial Voluntary Benefits products again. I would not build a book of business, a retirement plan, or my family's financial security around a relationship that can end this way. My advice is simple: walk away before you commit years of your life, and find another company you trust more.

Employers should think twice as well. Before placing employee benefits with a carrier, ask what happens if the producer who built and services the account is suddenly removed, access is cut off, accounts are reassigned, and the relationship your employees relied upon changes without a meaningful transition. In my opinion, how a company treats its producers can affect the employers and employees those producers serve.

That is my personal recommendation based on my own experience. It is not a court finding, a claim that every producer will have the same experience, or an invitation to contact, threaten, harass, review-bomb, or interfere with anyone.

The career I built

Twelve years of work. Approximately one hundred employer groups. Then one email.

I began working with Colonial and Paul Revere in approximately 2014. Timothy Vaughn joined the business in approximately 2017. We prospected, opened employer relationships, conducted enrollments, serviced accounts, trained, recruited, and built renewal streams through years of production.

This was not a side project. It was the career I had built. It was also a long-term economic asset: the renewal income created by policies and employer relationships developed over years. I expected those renewals to provide future security after the work of building the business had already been done.

Everything I had built through this relationship - the active earning ability, the accounts, and ultimately the remaining compensation stream - was taken out of my control.

Court-record basis: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 27-47, 175-235, 244-273. Personal statement: Bert J. van der Werff.

The accusation I dispute

Colonial and Paul Revere said I made another program a prerequisite. That accusation is false.

The January 23 termination letter said I caused an employer to believe it could not obtain Colonial coverage unless a separate program was offered alongside it. The letter characterized that as a misleading sales practice and used it as part of an immediate for-cause termination.

My answer is direct: I never conditioned Colonial or Paul Revere coverage on enrollment in another product or program. I never told an employer or employee that one was required to obtain the other. The separate program was optional, separately presented, and separately billed.

The complaint that triggered the termination did not accurately describe what happened. The written communications and signed election records identified in our federal case tell a different story.

Court-record basis: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 104-174; January 23, 2026 termination letter.

What the record shows, according to our filings

I am not asking anyone to accept a slogan. Read the evidence sequence.

The employer initiated the Colonial enrollment.Our filing describes contemporaneous emails in which the employer asked me to present Colonial benefits. My response disclosed the separate program as optional and standalone, and the employer scheduled the Colonial enrollment without expressing confusion about that separation.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 104-113.
Employees actually selected Colonial coverage by itself.The complaint states that five of fourteen employees in the enrollment at issue chose Colonial products without choosing the separate program. It also describes at least eighteen signed election forms from eight employer accounts reflecting independent Colonial-only elections.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 141-148, 208-214, 230-232.
The materials stated there were no participation requirements.The complaint identifies materials that expressly said “No Participation Requirements,” supporting my position that no separate enrollment was required.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 114-116.
I was told not to prepare for the compliance call.Colonial's January 21 email said, “You do not have to come prepared with anything to this call.” Our complaint alleges that the specific tying accusation was not disclosed before the questioning and decision.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 127-148; January 21, 2026 email.
I accepted Colonial's clarified interpretation in writing.On January 23, I wrote that we would follow the company's interpretation going forward and that the explanation was helpful. I was terminated only hours later.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 149-174.
Colonial had reviewed the election forms.On the later recorded call, the signer of the termination letter confirmed he had reviewed the employer's deduction forms before signing. When I pointed out the five Colonial-only elections, he acknowledged being aware of them.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 201-218; February 23, 2026 call transcript.
The explanation shifted to the employer's “feeling.”According to the complaint and call transcript, Colonial then said the employer felt it could not have Colonial without the separate program, while acknowledging the individual election records showed otherwise. The accusation was not withdrawn.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 208-219.
Weeks earlier, Colonial management had praised my compliance record under oath.Our complaint alleges that Colonial Territory Sales Manager Joel Pack testified that he knew me as honest, ethical, compliance-minded, and essentially a “pillar of compliance” during an approximately twelve-year working relationship.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 170-174, 184-188.

These are allegations and evidence descriptions from public filings and identified source documents. The defendants dispute liability, and the court has not adjudicated the merits.

June 1, 2026

Then Paul Revere said the forfeiture was “now and forever.”

On June 1, 2026, Paul Revere sent a letter titled “Forfeiture of Commissions.” It stated that the company was now and forever forfeiting all your rights to commissions, bonuses, or other compensation.

The letter repeated misconduct allegations that I deny. It did not use the word “renewals” in that sentence, but I understood “commissions” and “other compensation” to include the remaining renewal commissions created through my book of business. From that point forward, the renewal stream I had spent years building was gone.

That is why I say they took everything I had built through this relationship: the active work ended, the accounts were reassigned, and the company then declared all remaining compensation rights forfeited forever.

Read the letter and context Open the redacted source PDF

Source: June 1, 2026 Paul Revere “Forfeiture of Commissions” letter. Personal interpretation of its effect: Bert J. van der Werff.

The people and companies named in the case

This federal lawsuit names the organizations and decision-makers involved in our allegations.

The caption names Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Colonial Voluntary Benefits, Kathy Pratt, Erika Wasiak, and Raul Mota, among others. The verified complaint alleges that Colonial Voluntary Benefits is a marketing or trade name through which Colonial and/or Paul Revere products are marketed and sold. It further alleges that the individual defendants participated in compliance communications, investigation, termination, and related decisions. Raul Mota signed the January 23 termination letter and the June 1 commission-forfeiture letter; the June 1 letter copied Erika Wasiak.

Naming a person or company as a defendant is not a finding of liability. The defendants deny wrongdoing. The case-parties page explains only the roles reflected in the public caption and documents.

See the named case parties

Why this site exists

Silence would leave their letters as the only version of the story.

We filed suit because we want the accusations tested against the election records, employer communications, written guidance, call transcript, termination documents, and compensation records. We seek an accurate accounting and the relief available under law for the harm we allege.

I am speaking publicly because prospective agents, brokers, and employers deserve to know what I experienced before they decide whether to trust Colonial Life, Paul Revere, or Colonial Voluntary Benefits with years of work and long-term financial expectations.

My opinion remains simple: take my experience for what it is worth, think twice, and choose a different company.

Read the court-record summary Open the privacy-redacted complaint

The defendants' position matters too.

The defendants deny wrongdoing, contend that the producer agreements and their termination provisions govern, and filed a motion seeking arbitration or dismissal. We dispute their account, including whether the filed agreement copies establish assent to arbitration. The official docket and filed papers - not this website - control the current procedural status.