Charging applicants for a specific ancillary coverage orproduct without their informed consent is a violation of Floridastatutory law and can cause an insurance agent to lose his or herlicense.

In the following case, the agent sold --without adequateexplanation--coverages neither requested nor desired by customerswho only wanted the least expensive minimum legally requiredcoverages. Although the agent had the prospective insureds signforms indicating informed consent, these were never read norclearly explained to the insureds. They testified that if they hadbeen told the coverages were not required, they would not havepurchased them. The agent was suspended for her actions and sentback to the trial court to determine if the punishment was toosevere.
Avoid suspension by always explaining coverages to the insured,ascertaining that they understand what they are buying, and try toonly sell them coverages they want.
Beckett v. Dep't of Financial Services









Thomas v. State of Florida












Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is a California attorney specializingin expert witness testimony and consulting with plaintiffs anddefendants on insurance coverage, claims handling and bad faith. Hefounded Zalma Insurance Consultants, Culver City, Calif., in 2001and serves as its senior consultant. He can be reached at[email protected].His consulting practice's Web site iswww.zic.bz.