Posted On: February 5, 2008, 1:47 pm CST

Posted By: JLT

Company Gal I think you need to read the whole thread. Nobody is saying its illegal or immoral to terminate an agent who doesnt produce. It is the manner in which they do that is in question hence the court ruling. To terminate the coverage to the insured by reason "The agent is no longer representing this carrier" is not a legal reason to terminate the INSURED's coverage.

Its easy to sit in the company's position and think of the retailer as your customer however it isnt the agent that you are supposed to represent it is the name on that policy you just issued. That is part of what is in dispute, termination at will. That and the agent's right to have an acceptable time frame to save his business. Put the shoe on the other foot. To suddenly be told "sorry you cant place any more business with us effective now" can be finacially devistating to an agent. In the case of the insured suddenly he is without coverage and what happens in the case of a loss?

All the retailer is asking for is sufficent time to save his business. And for the insured to be able to have time to move his coverage to another carrier. Really is that too much to ask?