Nancy Daoud: Alluring Enough To Deceit… Even the Experts?

Nancy Daoud Ameriprise is a financial advisor based in Oxford, Connecticut. She is notorious for giving unsuitable recommendations to her clients in terms of insurance products. Her office is located at 90 Oxford Rd, Oxford, CT 06748, US and her contact number is 203-881-5504. 

In the following review, you’ll learn about the various disputes she has faced with her clients and authorities. This information will help you make a better-informed decision when you consider working with her. 

You can’t trust Nancy with any financial recommendations. Numerous clients of this financial advisor have complained about her unsuitable recommendations only to meet with disappointment. 

Those people had no idea that Nancy Daoud Ameriprise uses unethical tactics to free herself of any responsibility. 

Below are the various legal disputes she has had in her career: 

First Dispute

HjiawLCQCHHHBFDMrcvdF0I6kiPh9eCBlzFmBtxzFhmwkIb5yDgM5NuXt3 nA9SFVyr j9K QYDoEs0uWZMPvAXg9NriMx pK7dLWHTjjw9L1 pvm CMAkYIrboOy3 h8IbimBdi

The first dispute of Nancy Daoud Ameriprise occurred in 1998 where a client alleged that the variable universal life policy of $100,000 they purchased was unsuitable. They requested the company to cancel the policy. 

Nancy Daoud

Nancy Daoud and her firm denied this request and claimed that their recommendation was suitable according to the client’s goals and objectives. It’s very difficult for such disputes to end in the client’s favor because of the waivers they sign at the start of their professional relationship with their fiduciary. 

This is a common tactic among shady financial advisors and you’ll see that Nancy Daoud has used it frequently to avoid taking any responsibility. 

Second Dispute

2rJ9GszCMzShiE9t31ezz4FNRrLA5lZ2c fffFiQ7ceiId bObEMR75UP9zChLKXiRKj

This dispute occurred in 2003. Here, the client alleged that the life insurance policy they purchased in 2002 was inappropriate for their situation and requested reimbursement for their premiums. 

They had requested $32,800 in damages. However, the firm denied this claim by saying that the client was wrong and the advisor’s recommendation was suitable. The firm refunded the premiums later on after subtracting the cost of insurance. 

Third Dispute


This dispute happened in 2009. Here, the client complained through the State of Connecticut Insurance department that the variable universal life insurance policy she bought in May 2000 was unsuitable for her due to her risk tolerance. 

She had requested $53,902.51 in damages. Like in the previous two cases, the firm denied the claim by saying that the advisor made a suitable recommendation. Furthermore, they claimed that the client knew about all the costs as she had signed the required paperwork. 

This is why you should be extremely cautious of who you work with. Greedy advisors like Nancy Daoud Ameriprise use illicit and unethical tactics to trap her clients in unfavorable conditions as evidenced by these numerous disputes. 

Fourth Dispute

This is a 2010 dispute where the client alleged that the VUL policies opened in May 2007 didn’t meet their investment requirements. They had requested $29,860.11 in damages. 

Again, the firm denied this claim by saying that the products are true, suitable for the client’s goals and objectives. Also, the firm claimed that the client knew about the surrender charges as they disclosed the same at the time of purchase. 

Fifth Dispute

dgpuhog7BSdd1k5OKNvifwo72Pf7aB63J47iJEc4 ZIZ4jXvYA6Goy8sYHyMXJMSZsfgFz1qSnSClnHBWflOEAYvc6MvjdQ4Remrf8ubXyKhrGDq BfHA7qRkQCjFH7ZBjVFp ts

In this 2011 dispute, the client alleged that the inland American REIT purchase she made in April 2008 was unsuitable and she didn’t receive disclosure on the illiquid nature of the product. She had requested $50,000 in damages.

Nancy Daoud Ameriprise denied this claim but she hasn’t given any reason for it. Apart from this, there is no information available on the dispute on the FINRA BrokerCheck listing. 

Sixth Dispute

CxXIe9QZJP7SkmRKd2cJ4YuV75 M0j9FIhhC Sli8lkHJ4do BcDvvVt4PrGC2nmFAu9pY ICY9R92G6RkgzHsStlb5 zqsU6nC2e22ESaHtXmVBDMgvDLtM6HuF7Rvo0SdP5j1t

This dispute occurred on 12-23-2013. Here, the client alleged that they were not fully advised of the provisions of the business development company and real estate investment trust purchases made in November 2013. The client requested $241,035.32 in damages. 

Nancy and her firm denied this claim like the rest of them. However, she hasn’t specified on what grounds she denied the client’s claim of receiving incomplete information. 

As I mentioned before, it’s extremely difficult for such disputes to end in the investor’s favor because of the various waivers you have to sign when you work with the advisor. Nancy Daoud Ameriprise can give as much unsuitable advice as she wants without facing any repercussions. 

Seventh Dispute

oX9ARF4BcVViPAbe32P6paY6Juh34VW gzBilM8i0V0K7d8K6AfoQ5XC9o3TCsqJzlrO2bI3Sf7yDL2f6xbqCsA

This is an interesting dispute. It occurred in 2017 and the client alleged that he told his advisor he didn’t want to pay more than $4,000 per year for insurance coverage. But Nancy sold him a policy that was $4,000 per quarter and he couldn’t afford it. 

They had requested $25,199.43 in damages and settled the case for $28,223.03. However, the firm doesn’t accept its fault and claims that it settled the case simply because of an administrative error. 

Eighth Dispute

GDKc8fhWxqjj7wvq1Bgp465WvnberIz0XdoTGkNnx 9KtgbYc8mV ep9FvVbvS7 BIAXBO VF2XNkEp4l7kf3XrYGXV0h IP4a5y JmjaZfjf52fGCkcNSA2h3LqMK8sPILJVXsh

This is the most recent dispute Nancy Daoud has had with someone. It’s a regulatory action taken by the New York State Department of Financial Services. They alleged violations of New York Insurance law related to selling an insurance policy as an agent of an insurance career that was not authorized to conduct business in the state of New York. 

Also, the state department alleged failure to meet Regulation 60 requirements regarding the replacement of a life insurance policy. The resolution of this regulatory action was Stipulation and Consent. 

Nancy ended up paying $2,000 in civil and administrative penalties. She blamed it all on an administrative error like the previous dispute. 


Skilled financial advisors rarely face a single legal dispute in their careers and Nancy has faced eight of them so far. These disclosures are proof of her negligence and greed. 

As an investor, you should stay miles away from such advisors for the sake of your financial security and future. 

2.6 Total Score
Too many complaints

Financial advisors rarely face one legal dispute in their career. But Nancy Daoud of Ameriprise Financial Services has already faced 8 disputes so far. This is not a good sign and it shows that she lacks professionalism and care towards her clients’ interests.

2.5Expert Score
Concern for Clients
2.7User's score
Concern for Clients
  • None
  • Faced regulatory action
  • Faced multiple complaints for unsuitable recommendations
  • Has faced disputes consistently
Add your review  |  Read reviews and comments

Show all Most Helpful Highest Rating Lowest Rating Add your review
  1. 1.35
    Concern for Clients

    Their performance is mediocre but their service is annoying.

    - CONS: Poor service
    Helpful(0) Unhelpful(0)You have already voted this
  2. I’m glad I found this review now. Thank you.

Leave a reply

Your total score