N.J. Agents Upset Despite Win

By Mark E. Ruquet

NU Online News Service, Aug. 9, 9:55 a.m., EDT?A decision by the New Jersey State Supreme Court reaffirming the current standard of care owed to clients by agents and brokers has won the appreciation of agents, but they are upset that a broker was sued because of a customer's misstatement of facts.[@@]

Since the Professional Insurance Agents of New Jersey announced the court's decision, agents have been contacting the association expressing both anger and dismay that a customer who misstated to his agent on the policy application could turn around and sue the agency for breech of duty.

"It's rare that we see such a huge reaction like this," said Mary Christiano, spokeswoman for the Professional Insurance Agents organization, a four-state association including PIA New Jersey.

PIANJ filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the broker in the case.

"Since we announced the court decision to our members, we've received an extraordinary response from the agent-broker community," Louis Beckerman, PIANJ president, said by e-mail. "We are hearing, and agree with, a very strong sentiment that the protection of agents against being sued by a client who misstates facts in his policy application is fundamentally important."

He noted that agents should be able to rely on information given to them by their clients without having to check their veracity.

The case involved Dr. Reginald Jenkins, a New Jersey specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, and C & R Insurance Agency based in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., and Zurich Insurance Company.

Dr. Jenkins purchased medical malpractice insurance through C & R Insurance from Zurich in early February of 1998. The doctor's previous insurance with Princeton Insurance Company was cancelled for nonpayment prior to the termination date of the policy. Princeton informed Dr. Jenkins that the cancellation was retroactive to Oct. 26, 1997.

In purchasing the Zurich policy, Dr. Jenkins failed to inform C&R that his previous policy, which would have covered up to Feb. 1, 1998, was cancelled.

The doctor was sued for alleged negligence for an incident that occurred on Jan. 3 and 4, 1998. Zurich declined coverage "because the incident occurred prior to the policy's February 1, 1998, ?retroactive' date," according to court papers.

After several legal maneuvers, both Zurich and C&R were included as defendants in the suit.

Due to the ambiguity of Zurich's policy regarding dates of effectiveness of the policy, the Supreme Court ruled that a trial would have to decide the carrier's involvement.

C&R was found not to have breeched its duty as the agent producing the policy, securing a policy "neither void nor materially deficient" and providing the coverage intended.

"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's decision," Mr. Beckerman said. "Professional agents and brokers have the utmost duty to provide accurate and ethical service for their clients. However, policyholders hold an equally important responsibility to be truthful and forthcoming so that their producers can do their jobs."

Special Reports /

N.J. Agents Upset Despite Win

Related Stories

Recommended For You