Originally Posted by Dave020
Probably varies by state, however in California there is a significant distinction.
Agent in CA is appointed with and earns commission from carriers and their products. Agents are either captive or independent.
Broker in CA is NOT appointed with any carrier, must register and post bond as a broker, and cannot recommend a specific product nor can broker earn any commission from the sale of any product--must charge a fee for service.
That being said, the term broker gets thrown around a lot and is often used inappropriately.
Dave -
While I used to agree with this, I don't think this is true anymore. California has done away with the 'agent' license for P&C (everyone is licensed as a broker) and also has done away with the broker license for life and health (further divide this into the new license classifications, which I've yet to care a bit about).
In general, I look at it this way, though legally it's not correct:
A broker has a primary fiduciary responsibility to the client, with secondary to the company.
An agent has a primary fiduciary responsibility to the carrier, with secondary to the client.
As such, it is impossible to get an appointment to any carrier as a true broker, they only appoint agents. If you read the appointment agreement with any carrier, you'll see this.
The differences are subtle, most of the time, but who comes first is extremely important to the carriers. A while back, we had someone who wanted to write all the uninsurables in small group (guaranteed issue in California) which works as a broker, putting the client first, but breaks the system when abused, which is why carriers want agents.
I've long since given up trying to parse the subtle distinctions of a broker vs an agent. The real question is what are you trying to accomplish?
Dan