A recent court case illustrates why wholesale brokers should carefully review the contractual language before signing with a surplus-lines carrier an agreement that obligates the producer to ensure that risks being submitted comply with the insurer’s underwriting criteria.

In GeoVera Specialty Insurance Co. vs. Graham Rogers Inc., the Eighth Circuit ruled that although insurance-brokerage firm Graham Rogers Inc. did not act negligently, it was still liable to underwriter GeoVera Specialty Insurance Co. based on the language in the agreement between the two parties—which placed the duty on Graham to apply GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines to all applications of insurance submitted by retailers.

GeoVera and Graham entered into a surplus-lines broker agreement that allowed GeoVera to tap into Graham’s network of insurance agents. GeoVera also maintained an electronic residential-homeowner-quoting and homeowner-insurance-processing system by which retailers, appointed by Graham, could submit applications to GeoVera directly.

Graham entered into a retail-producer agreement with a retail insurance agent. The retail producer submitted a homeowners’ insurance policy application for the home of Mr. and Mrs. Balentine. GeoVera accepted their application and issued a policy.

Soon after, the Balentines filed a claim with GeoVera for a residential fire. During GeoVera’s investigation of the claim, it was discovered that the Balentines would not have qualified for coverage under GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines because:

• The insured’s home was located on six acres of land, while the application stated it was on five or fewer acres. Insured lots may not exceed five acres under GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines.

• The Balentines had filed for bankruptcy, and the application stated they had not filed for bankruptcy in the previous five years.

• The application was not signed by the Balentines. All applications must be signed under the GeoVera underwriting guidelines.

After determining that the application’s deficiencies could not be attributed to the Balentines, GeoVera paid the insureds in excess of $780,000 on their claim. GeoVera then filed claims against Graham asserting, among other things, breach of contract and negligence. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed GeoVera’s negligence claims against Graham due to the utter lack of involvement in the underwriting process by Graham; and also dismissed GeoVera’s contract claim against Graham.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of no negligence in favor of Graham but reversed the breach-of-contract claim and found in a strongly worded opinion that GeoVera could proceed with its breach-of-contract claim against Graham.

While GeoVera and Graham agreed that Graham had “no part in submitting the Balentines’ application,” the issue decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the agreement between GeoVera and Graham placed a duty on Graham to apply GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines to applications for insurance submitted by retailers.

The Eighth Circuit agreed with GeoVera that the agreement “placed a duty on Graham to apply GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines to all applications for insurance submitted under the terms of the agreement, including those submitted by retailers appointed by Graham.” The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of the breach-of-contract claim asserted by GeoVera against Graham. On remand, GeoVera moved again for summary judgment against Graham. After careful consideration, the district court granted GeoVera’s motion for summary judgment.

The district court followed the finding of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that concluded: “While retailers may help or assist Graham in applying the underwriting guidelines, Graham retained the ultimate duty to apply GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines so that the risk to be insured fell within the acceptable underwriting guidelines.”

It was undisputed that Graham took no action to determine that the Balentines’ residence fell within GeoVera’s underwriting criteria. Based on the undisputed record, the court found as a matter of law “that Graham breached its duty to apply GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines to the Balentines’ surplus-lines application.” The district court then awarded GeoVera $785,708.34 in damages—the amount it paid the Balentines for damages covered under the homeowners’ policy.

Graham had no involvement whatsoever with the underwriting process, yet it obligated itself in contract to make sure the risk submitted by the retail producer covered only those risks that complied with GeoVera’s underwriting guidelines.

The case exemplifies the vast difference between obligations in tort and contract. No one was arguing that the wholesale broker did anything “wrong” or that they were negligent, but the fact remains that they obligated themselves in contract to the carrier to submit only those risks which complied with underwriting guidelines.

Special Reports /

Broker E&O Risk in Surplus-Lines Agreements

Related Stories

Recommended For You