finding that a request for “adequate protection” did not trigger any particular duty on behalf of the agent where “[p]urchasers of insurance usually do seek ‘adequate protection’ . . . ‘To permit a conversation such as this to serve as the basis for an issue of fact leading to a finding of an expanded principal-agent relationship would in substance make the agent a blanket insurer for his principal’”
How later courts described this case
- finding that a request for “adequate protection” did not trigger any particular duty on behalf of the agent where “[p]urchasers of insurance usually do seek ‘adequate protection’ . . . ‘To permit a conversation such as this to serve as the basis for an issue of fact leading to a finding of an expanded principal-agent relationship would in substance make the agent a blanket insurer for his principal’”
- holding that plaintiffs had not stated a negligence claim where the agent did not advise then about the availability of higher limits because plaintiffs simply requested “adequate protection” which is a “typical request by an insured” and permitting such a conversation to expand the scope of the duty “would in substance make the agent a blanket insurer for his principal”
- holding that insurance agent had no duty to advise insured “as to the availability of higher limits of UM coverage”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADAMS, J.,
concurs specially:
T11 I concur with the majority opinion, but I write separately to highlight the importance of footnote 1. The rule applied in this case does not necessarily address claims against an insurance agent for negligence where that agent is alleged to be an agent of the party seeking insurance or is not an employee of one insurance company but is an "independent agent" representing several competing companies. Whether liability for negligence advice might be imposed against the insurance agent in those cireumstances appears to be undecided in Oklahoma. See Hefley v. Neely Insurance Agency, Inc., 1998 OK 12 , 954 P.2d 135 .