 |
In the following case, the agent sold --without adequate explanation--coverages neither requested nor desired by customers who only wanted the least expensive minimum legally required coverages. Although the agent had the prospective insureds sign forms indicating informed consent, these were never read nor clearly explained to the insureds. They testified that if they had been told the coverages were not required, they would not have purchased them. The agent was suspended for her actions and sent back to the trial court to determine if the punishment was too severe.
Avoid suspension by always explaining coverages to the insured, ascertaining that they understand what they are buying, and try to only 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 specializing in expert witness testimony and consulting with plaintiffs and defendants on insurance coverage, claims handling and bad faith. He founded Zalma Insurance Consultants, Culver City, Calif., in 2001 and serves as its senior consultant. He can be reached at zalma@zalma.com . His consulting practice's Web site is www.zic.bz .
NOT FOR REPRINT
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.