I believe that it is falicious to argue-especially in today\’s business climate that an agent does not have a duty to disclose what a proper amt. of coverage should be on special risks especially if the agent\’s knowledge of the risk and item are greater than his client. Also, most companies educate there agents in this regard relative coverage amounts as does a companies Underwriting Department. I guess I don\’t have the whole story here.
RD suggests a position that is way off base. Agents are not \”appraisers\” qualified to determine the amount of liabiltiy or property values an insured needs. Sure tools are available on the property side to assist in valuation but they are hardly dependable to predict replacement cost. The insured is and should continue to be the party to detemine how much liability they choose to
transfer by way of insurance and how much they need to protect property. In this case it is even more overboard since the agent had NO relationship whatsoever with the third party. The problem here should be between the third party and the insured who did not have the coverage the third party claims the insured should have had. However, the agent did owe a duty to his insured to advise of the exclusion related to occurrences in India. The third party was clearly negligent in not mitigation its own expousre by not seeking proof of insurance from the insured that was satisfactory in accordance with the business contract between the parties. RD would turn an agent into a surety for third parties unknown. Crazy logic!
jt\’S reply dodges the question I think but regardless, agree AN AGENT is not an appraiser nor did I infer such. Some further confustion with the interchange use of liability and property coverage. Simply put, excusing the argument of the court,an agent does have an implied or expressed responsibility to guide his client regarding the extent of coverage prudent, in a lot of scenarios and that is recognized by common sense: i SEE MY AGENT ASKING HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH ON MY AUTO LIABILITY? Does not the agent have more knowledge about that value relative to verdicts, claims, etc? then his client. Do
not companies exercise that perogative repeatedly when they list minimums and maxiums they will provide? So, in theory at least the agent exercises that responsibility to inform from perspective and application information. Nothing new here. The rest of the court decision is interesting to say the least.
I believe that it is falicious to argue-especially in today\’s business climate that an agent does not have a duty to disclose what a proper amt. of coverage should be on special risks especially if the agent\’s knowledge of the risk and item are greater than his client. Also, most companies educate there agents in this regard relative coverage amounts as does a companies Underwriting Department. I guess I don\’t have the whole story here.
RD suggests a position that is way off base. Agents are not \”appraisers\” qualified to determine the amount of liabiltiy or property values an insured needs. Sure tools are available on the property side to assist in valuation but they are hardly dependable to predict replacement cost. The insured is and should continue to be the party to detemine how much liability they choose to
transfer by way of insurance and how much they need to protect property. In this case it is even more overboard since the agent had NO relationship whatsoever with the third party. The problem here should be between the third party and the insured who did not have the coverage the third party claims the insured should have had. However, the agent did owe a duty to his insured to advise of the exclusion related to occurrences in India. The third party was clearly negligent in not mitigation its own expousre by not seeking proof of insurance from the insured that was satisfactory in accordance with the business contract between the parties. RD would turn an agent into a surety for third parties unknown. Crazy logic!
jt\’S reply dodges the question I think but regardless, agree AN AGENT is not an appraiser nor did I infer such. Some further confustion with the interchange use of liability and property coverage. Simply put, excusing the argument of the court,an agent does have an implied or expressed responsibility to guide his client regarding the extent of coverage prudent, in a lot of scenarios and that is recognized by common sense: i SEE MY AGENT ASKING HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH ON MY AUTO LIABILITY? Does not the agent have more knowledge about that value relative to verdicts, claims, etc? then his client. Do
not companies exercise that perogative repeatedly when they list minimums and maxiums they will provide? So, in theory at least the agent exercises that responsibility to inform from perspective and application information. Nothing new here. The rest of the court decision is interesting to say the least.