A first-person statement by Bert J. van der Werff

They said I tied products.
I did not.

For twelve years, I built employer relationships, commissions, and renewal income through Colonial Life and The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. On January 23, 2026, one email terminated me immediately for alleged misconduct. The accusation at the center of that decision was false. This is my side.

I am a father of five. That twelve-year income supported my household. I will protect my children’s privacy, but I will not erase the human cost.

That is my firsthand account and the position Timothy Vaughn and I verified in our filed complaint. The defendants dispute our allegations. No statement on this site is a court finding.

Read my story Read the complaint

Before the email

Twelve years of work cannot be summarized as a contract number.

I began working with Colonial and Paul Revere in approximately 2014. Tim joined the business in approximately 2017. We did the prospecting, earned the employer relationships, conducted enrollments, serviced accounts, and built the renewal streams. Our filed complaint describes a book of business of approximately 100 employer groups and years of income created through that work.

This was not a side project. It was the career I had built and the income stream that supported my household. I am a father of five. I continue to meet my responsibilities to my family. To protect my children, I will not publish private details about them, private family matters, or our household finances.

One email cannot erase the years it took to build a livelihood. It can still cut off access to the income those years created.

Court-record basis: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 27–47, 244–250. Personal family statement: Bert J. van der Werff.

The accusation

The employer complaint said I conditioned Colonial coverage on another program. I never did that.

Colonial’s termination letter said I caused an employer to believe its employees could not obtain Colonial coverage unless they also enrolled in a separate program. It characterized that as a misleading sales practice and used the accusation as part of an immediate for-cause termination.

My answer is unequivocal: I never told an employer or employee that Colonial coverage required enrollment in any separate program. I never made one product a prerequisite for another. The separate non-insurance program was disclosed as optional, presented separately, and billed separately.

The employer complaint that triggered Colonial’s investigation did not describe what actually happened. For months, the written communications described in our filing showed no tying concern. The dispute that had arisen concerned cancellation and compliance questions—not whether one product was required to obtain another.

Court-record basis: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 104–126, 162–174; January 23, 2026 termination letter.

Why I am speaking

I do not ask anyone to accept my word without looking at the record.

The employer initiated the Colonial enrollment.Our filing describes contemporaneous emails in which the employer asked me to present Colonial benefits. My response identified the separate program as optional and standalone, and the employer proceeded to schedule Colonial enrollment without expressing confusion about that separation.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 104–113.
Employees actually enrolled in Colonial coverage by itself.The filed complaint states that five of fourteen employees in the enrollment at issue chose Colonial products without choosing the separate program. It also describes a sample of at least eighteen signed election forms across eight employer accounts showing the same independent enrollment pattern.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 141–148, 208–214, 230–232.
Colonial had reviewed the records before terminating me.According to the complaint, a Colonial executive later confirmed on a recorded call that he had reviewed the employer’s deduction forms before signing the termination letter.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 201–218.
I was told not to prepare for the investigation call.Colonial’s January 21 email said, “You do not have to come prepared with anything to this call.” The complaint alleges that the specific tying accusation was not disclosed to me during that call before the decision was made.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 127–148; January 21, 2026 email.
I accepted Colonial’s clarified interpretation in writing.On January 23, I told Colonial that we would follow its interpretation going forward and that the explanation was helpful. I was terminated only hours later.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 149–174.
The accusation was not corrected after the records were confronted.The complaint alleges that, when the independent enrollments were raised during the later recorded call, Colonial did not deny them and described the employer’s “feeling” rather than contrary objective enrollment data. The for-cause accusation remained in place.Verified Complaint ¶¶ 208–218.

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

What followed

The email ended more than a relationship.

The termination letter immediately ended my DGA relationship and invoked a for-cause characterization. Tim received a separate notice referring to a thirty-day period, but our filing alleges that his access and practical ability to earn were removed immediately. The employer accounts we had built and serviced were reassigned.

The income stream produced by years of work was interrupted at once. The renewal value, client relationships, professional standing, and future we had built did not simply follow us out the door. The complaint also raises unresolved issues involving commissions, renewals, vesting, chargebacks, offsets, recoupment, and a full accounting.

Professionally, this has been devastating. It broke my trust in the industry and has pushed me away from the insurance career I spent more than a decade building, at least for now. I am not publishing private household details to prove that this hurt. The loss of a twelve-year livelihood speaks for itself.

Court-record basis: Verified Complaint ¶¶ 175–235, 244–273, 298–327.

To prospective agents and brokers

Do not build your family’s future on trust alone.

Based on what happened to us, I believe any producer considering Colonial or Paul Revere should think carefully before making that relationship the foundation of a livelihood. Loyalty, production, and years of service are not substitutes for enforceable written protections.

I am not telling anyone what decision to make. I am telling you to have independent counsel review the actual documents and to understand, in writing:

whether you possess a complete, legible, fully executed agreement;
who may terminate the relationship, for what reasons, and what notice means in practice;
who controls employer accounts and whether they can be reassigned immediately;
when commissions and renewals vest, and what can be withheld, offset, charged back, recouped, or forfeited;
where any arbitration would occur, which rules apply, and who pays the fees;
whether there is a neutral review process before a producer is labeled as having engaged in misconduct; and
how you will preserve every compliance approval, training instruction, employer communication, and election record.

Read the agreement as though the relationship will end tomorrow—because years of hard work do not guarantee that it will not.

This warning is my opinion based on my experience. It is not a request to boycott, contact, threaten, harass, review-bomb, or interfere with any company, employee, client, witness, lawyer, or court.

What we are asking for

Let the truth be tested. Account for what was earned. Correct what was false.

We filed suit because we want the accusation examined against the enrollment records, employer communications, training, written guidance, termination documents, and compensation records. We seek an accurate accounting and the relief available under law for the harm we allege.

I am using my own voice because silence leaves the termination letter as the only story. This website exists so that our side—and the documents behind it—can be read.

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

Read the record. Form your own view. Please do not contact anyone on our behalf.

The defendants’ position matters too.

The defendants deny wrongdoing, contend that the producer agreements and their termination provisions govern, and have sought to compel arbitration or dismiss the claims. We dispute their account, including whether the filed agreement copies establish assent to arbitration. The official docket and all filed papers—not this website—are the controlling procedural record.

They said I tied products.I did not.