Rebecca is an appointed producer for Vanguard Property & Casualty. Her written agency agreement explicitly prohibits her from binding commercial liability coverage without prior approval from a company underwriter. Despite this strict contractual limitation, Vanguard routinely supplies Rebecca with commercial binding receipt books, and she has issued these binders to clients for the past two years without Vanguard ever objecting or returning the associated premiums. Rebecca issues a commercial binder to a new client without prior approval, and the client suffers a significant covered loss the next day. Under agency law, how will the courts likely determine the insurer's liability for this claim?
- AVanguard can successfully deny the claim because the express authority defined in Rebecca's written agency agreement strictly prohibited binding commercial risks.
- BVanguard can successfully deny the claim because Rebecca only possessed implied authority, which cannot legally override a direct written prohibition.
- Vanguard is legally responsible for the claim because providing the binding receipt books and continuously accepting her prior binders created apparent authority.Cevap
- DVanguard is legally responsible for the claim because Rebecca's unauthorized issuance of the binder constitutes a voluntary waiver of the insurer's underwriting requirements.
Cevap
Vanguard is legally responsible for the claim because providing the binding receipt books and continuously accepting her prior binders created apparent authority.
The correct answer accurately applies the doctrine of apparent authority. Apparent authority exists when a principal's actions or inaction (such as providing binding materials and failing to stop unauthorized practices) lead a reasonable third party to believe the agent has authority. Because Vanguard created this situation through its ongoing conduct, they are legally bound by Rebecca's actions, despite the internal contract limitations.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Apparent Authority