I posted before but it did not show up. I am asking of anyone's experience here who would be concerned if your employer is delegating the basic agent duties to unlicensed employees without direction and supervision? We work on accounts all over the US (non-resident P&C and Surplus Lines) and from my research, this is in violation of most states' insurance statutes.
I checked several different insurance statutes for a variety of states, and they are clear that an agent is a "person" and not an "entity" and that certain activities are supposed to be performed by a licensed agent only.
The questions I have are: if an insurer grants this agency binding authority - does this mean that the unlicensed employee is underwriting and doesn't need a license? This same employee would be talking to insureds, quoting; as I said, acting as the agent. The licensed agent is the owner, but this is someone who is only at work a few hours a day and there are no other staff licensed in all states.
Further to that, and more specifically, if the unlicensed employee performs an act that the agent did not direct them to do specifically and this creates a claim - keep in mind the employer knows the work the employee is doing most likely would require a license - would the E&O company deny the claim?
My thinking is that because unlawful/dishonest acts are not covered under E&O, the employer (i.e. agency) knew the unlicensed employee would perform actions of an agent, then the E&O coverage is not there.
Lastly, I was asked to obtain non-resident licenses in a few states so we can write business - should I be worried? Likely nothing would happen, but if there were an E&O claim, would this affect me or should I just surrender the non-resident licenses and tell my employer that ethically, I can't work on accounts in states where he is not licensed? Again, if the agent knows he is not licensed, any activity would be excluded from E&O based on it being dishonest.
Any advice/opions on this would be appreciated!
I checked several different insurance statutes for a variety of states, and they are clear that an agent is a "person" and not an "entity" and that certain activities are supposed to be performed by a licensed agent only.
The questions I have are: if an insurer grants this agency binding authority - does this mean that the unlicensed employee is underwriting and doesn't need a license? This same employee would be talking to insureds, quoting; as I said, acting as the agent. The licensed agent is the owner, but this is someone who is only at work a few hours a day and there are no other staff licensed in all states.
Further to that, and more specifically, if the unlicensed employee performs an act that the agent did not direct them to do specifically and this creates a claim - keep in mind the employer knows the work the employee is doing most likely would require a license - would the E&O company deny the claim?
My thinking is that because unlawful/dishonest acts are not covered under E&O, the employer (i.e. agency) knew the unlicensed employee would perform actions of an agent, then the E&O coverage is not there.
Lastly, I was asked to obtain non-resident licenses in a few states so we can write business - should I be worried? Likely nothing would happen, but if there were an E&O claim, would this affect me or should I just surrender the non-resident licenses and tell my employer that ethically, I can't work on accounts in states where he is not licensed? Again, if the agent knows he is not licensed, any activity would be excluded from E&O based on it being dishonest.
Any advice/opions on this would be appreciated!