Which practice involving comparison with another insurance company could be deemed misconduct?

The practice deemed misconduct in this scenario is the incomplete comparison encouraging forfeiture of policies. This approach can mislead consumers by not presenting a full and fair representation of the policies being compared. When insurance professionals facilitate comparisons, it is crucial to ensure that the information provided is complete, accurate, and balanced. Incomplete comparisons can create an impression that one policy is superior without disclosing important information that may impact the consumer's decision. This could lead the consumer to forfeit existing valuable policies, which is unethical as it does not serve the best interest of the client.

Highlighting differences in coverage is a legitimate practice that helps consumers understand what they are getting in their policies, while providing quotes from multiple companies can help consumers make informed comparisons. Validating policy benefits is also a standard practice that reassures clients about the value of their existing policies. In contrast, the incomplete approach can have detrimental consequences for the policyholder, making it unethical and potentially misleading.