Misplaced Pages

#880119

49-442: Property and casualty insurance agents sell insurance policies that protect individuals and businesses from financial loss resulting from automobile accidents, fire, theft, storms, and other events that can damage property. For businesses, property and casualty insurance can also cover injured Workers Compensation Insurance , product liability claims, or medical malpractice claims. Independent insurance agents typically represent

98-432: A bakery would have to buy a separate policy for each of the following risks: manufacturing operations, elevators, teamsters , product liability, contractual liability (for a spur track connecting the bakery to a nearby railroad), premises liability (for a retail store), and owners' protective liability (for negligence of contractors hired to make any building modifications). In 1941, the insurance industry began to shift to

147-434: A collateral agreement - one that would naturally and normally be included in a separate writing - will not be barred. For example, if A contracts with B to paint B's house for $ 1,000, B can introduce extrinsic evidence to show that A also contracted to paint B's storage shed for $ 100. The agreement to paint the shed would logically be in a separate document from the agreement to paint the house. Though its name suggests that it

196-416: A different approach to interpreting commercial contracts, considering the "language used by the parties, the surrounding circumstances known to them and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the contract" at the "genesis of the transaction". This necessarily implies consideration of surrounding circumstances and indicates a broader approach may be adopted by the court in the future. The latest view

245-432: A mix of standard and nonstandard forms. By analogy, policy endorsements that are not written on standard forms or whose language is custom-written to fit the insured's particular circumstances are known as manuscript endorsements. Parol evidence rule The parol evidence rule is a rule in common law jurisdictions limiting the kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine

294-557: A number of insurance companies , or "carriers", and sell the products that most appropriately meet the needs of their clients. Independent agents typically are very well trained and knowledgeable of the complexities of the insurance market and insurance law . Their expertise allows them to advise their clients about appropriate amounts of insurance and insurance coverages for their particular needs. Often, independent insurance agents will work with insurance intermediaries, who obtain quotes from multiple insurance providers and pass them off to

343-477: A number of exceptions to this general rule. These include partially integrated contracts, agreements with separate consideration, in order to resolve ambiguities, or to establish contract defenses. To take an example, Carl agrees in writing to sell Betty a car for $ 1,000, but later, Betty argues that Carl earlier told her that she would only need to pay Carl $ 800. The parol evidence rule would generally prevent Betty from testifying to this alleged conversation because

392-437: A partial integrated agreement, no parol evidence that contradicts anything integrated is permitted. And (3), if the parol evidence is collateral, meaning it regards a different agreement, and does not contradict the integrated terms, and are not terms any reasonable person would always naturally integrate, then the rule does not apply and the evidence is admissible. In a minority of U.S. states, (Florida, Colorado, and Wisconsin),

441-443: A particular insurance company terminates, the agent retains the rights to active accounts and may place them with another insurer. Competition exists between exclusive agents and independent agents. Exclusive agents, who are salaried employees of the insurance company, write a majority of the personal lines business. However, because of the complexities involved in commercial risks, independent agents capture approximately 80 percent of

490-422: A policy. Oral contracts pending the issuance of a written policy can occur. The insurance contract or agreement is a contract whereby the insurer promises to pay benefits to the insured or on their behalf to a third party if certain defined events occur. Subject to the "fortuity principle", the event must be uncertain. The uncertainty can be either as to when the event will happen (e.g. in a life insurance policy,

539-473: A written or oral communication made prior to execution of the written contract; or (2) an oral communication made contemporaneous with execution of the written contract. Evidence of a later communication will not be barred by this rule, as it is admissible to show a later modification of the contract (although it might be inadmissible for some other reason, such as the Statute of frauds ). Similarly, evidence of

SECTION 10

#1732772378881

588-404: Is a partial integration. This means that the writing was a final agreement between the parties (and not mere preliminary negotiations) as to some terms, but not as to others. On the other hand, if the writing were to contain all of the terms as to which the parties agreed, then it would be a complete integration. One way to ensure that the contract will be found to be a final and complete integration

637-548: Is a procedural evidence rule, the consensus of courts and commentators is that the parol evidence rule constitutes substantive contract law. The parol evidence rule is a common trap for consumers. For example: The effect of this can be negated sometimes by specific statutory rules around consumer contracts (e.g. the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the United Kingdom). In order for the rule to be effective,

686-418: Is generally an integrated contract, meaning that it includes all forms associated with the agreement between the insured and insurer. In some cases, however, supplementary writings such as letters sent after the final agreement can make the insurance policy a non-integrated contract. One insurance textbook states that generally "courts consider all prior negotiations or agreements ... every contractual term in

735-442: Is little industry-wide standardization. For the vast majority of insurance policies, the only page that is heavily custom-written to the insured's needs is the declarations page. All other pages are standard forms that refer back to terms defined in the declarations as needed. However, certain types of insurance, such as media insurance, are written as manuscript policies , which are either custom-drafted from scratch or written from

784-581: Is that it is a rule of evidence (like the Federal Rules of Evidence ), but that is not the case; whereas in England it is indeed a rule of evidence. The supporting rationale for excluding the content of verbal agreements from written contracts is that since the contracting parties have agreed to reduce their contract to a single and final writing, extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as

833-551: Is that there is evidence of trade usage, which is well-known, uniform and certain. Appleby v Pursell [1973] 2 NSWLR 879. Also, a narrow view of admissibility of extrinsic evidence has been taken, where evidence of surrounding circumstances is only admissible to resolve patent ambiguity, latent ambiguity, and inherent ambiguity in the meaning of the words of a contract. The High Court in Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd took

882-409: Is the country’s largest writer of private passenger auto insurance through the independent agent distribution channel. Insurance policies In insurance , the insurance policy is a contract (generally a standard form contract ) between the insurer and the policyholder, which determines the claims which the insurer is legally required to pay. In exchange for an initial payment, known as

931-623: Is the narrow view which was described in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited . In the New South Wales case of Saleh v Romanous , it was held that equitable estoppel triumphs common law rules of parol evidence. See L G Throne v Thomas Borthwick where the dissent of Herron J has been subsequently adopted. In South Africa the Supreme Court of Appeal , beginning with

980-442: Is through the inclusion of a merger clause , which recites that the contract is, in fact, the whole agreement between the parties. However, many modern cases have found merger clauses to be only a rebuttable presumption . The importance of the distinction between partial and complete integrations is relevant to what evidence is excluded under the parol evidence rule. For both complete and partial integrations, evidence contradicting

1029-481: The American Association of Insurance Services . This reduces the regulatory burden for insurers as policy forms must be approved by states; it also allows consumers to more readily compare policies, albeit at the expense of consumer choice . In addition, as policy forms are reviewed by courts, the interpretations become more predictable as courts elaborate upon the interpretation of the same clauses in

SECTION 20

#1732772378881

1078-581: The Anglo-Norman French parol or parole , meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case. The rule's origins lie in English contract law , but it has been adopted in other common law jurisdictions; however there are now some differences between application of the rule in different jurisdictions. For instance, in the US, a common misconception

1127-418: The Supreme Court of California complained: The instant case presents yet another illustration of the dangers of the present complex structuring of insurance policies. Unfortunately the insurance industry has become addicted to the practice of building into policies one condition or exception upon another in the shape of a linguistic Tower of Babel . We join other courts in decrying a trend which both plunges

1176-465: The UCC § 2-202: Parol evidence cannot contradict a writing intended to be the "final expression" of the agreement integrated but may be explained or supplemented by (a) a course of dealing/usage of trade/ course of performance, and by (b) evidence of consistent additional terms unless the writing was also intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. Additional information on

1225-402: The admission of evidence to determine if the contract was fully integrated and to determine if the parol evidence is relevant. In these jurisdictions, such as California, one can bring in parol evidence even if the contract is unambiguous on its face, if the parol evidence creates ambiguity. The policy is to get to the actual truth, sometimes. The third and final admissibility rule is that under

1274-401: The commercial lines market. It is having access to multiple markets that gives independent agents a competitive advantage in commercial lines. To add to an independent agent’s competition pool, many insurance companies are direct competitors to the agents they appoint. For example, Progressive Insurance spends nearly $ 300 million a year in advertising directly to the public. Yet, Progressive

1323-420: The contract in question must first be a final integrated writing; it must, in the judgment of the court, be the final agreement between the parties (as opposed to a mere draft, for example). A final agreement is either a partial or complete integration, provided that it has an agreement on its face indicating its finality. If it contains some, but not all, of the terms as to which the parties have agreed then it

1372-413: The current system where covered risks are initially defined broadly in an "all risk" or "all sums" insuring agreement on a general policy form (e.g., "We will pay all sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages..."), then narrowed down by subsequent exclusion clauses (e.g., "This insurance does not apply to..."). If the insured desires coverage for a risk taken out by an exclusion on

1421-461: The independent agent. Working with an insurance intermediary service allows the independent agent to review many quotes and offer their clients the best policy options available. For their efforts, independent agents are paid a commission (remuneration) . In addition to insurance policies, agents often sell mutual funds , annuities , and products that address wealth management, retirement and estate planning . Independent agents must be licensed by

1470-518: The insurance companies they represent. Several companies may authorize the agent to sell for them, but the agent remains an independent businessperson. While the agent collects commissions , they do not collect a salary from the companies they represent. On average, independent agents work with thirteen property and casualty and six life and health insurance companies on a regular basis. Independent agents own and control their accounts, policy records, and renewals. If an independent agent’s contract with

1519-572: The insured into a state of uncertainty and burdens the judiciary with the task of resolving it. We reiterate our plea for clarity and simplicity in policies that fulfill so important a public service. In the United States, property and casualty insurers typically use similar or even identical language in their standard insurance policies, which are drafted by advisory organizations such as the Insurance Services Office and

Independent insurance agent - Misplaced Pages Continue

1568-780: The landmark ruling in KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd , redefined the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence that may be used in the interpretation of contracts in South Africa and in Dexgroup (Pty) Ltd v Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd the Supreme Court of Appeal gave further clarity on these rules. The starting point is the language of the document and the parol evidence rule prevents evidence to add to, detract from or modify

1617-542: The parol evidence rule has 'no operation until it is first determined' that all the terms of the contract are in writing. This threshold question applies even in those jurisdictions that apply a very strong form of the parol evidence rule, called the " Four Corners Rule ". Beyond that, the exceptions to the parol evidence rule vary between jurisdictions. Examples of circumstances where extrinsic evidence may be admissible in different jurisdictions include: In order for evidence to fall within this rule, it must involve either (1)

1666-497: The parol evidence rule is extremely strong and extrinsic evidence is always barred from being used to interpret a contract. This is called the Four Corners Rule , and it is traditional/old. In a Four Corners Rule jurisdiction, there are two basic rules. First, the court will never allow parol evidence if the parties intended a full and completely integrated agreement, and second, the court will only turn to parol evidence if

1715-480: The parol evidence rule may be found in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213. In New South Wales, if an entire agreement clause, does not exist in the contract terms, parol evidence rule is a default rule of a completely written contract that the admission of extrinsic evidence is not allowed, and the contract should be understood in an objective approach. However there are two exceptions that could overcome

1764-415: The parol evidence rule that extrinsic evidence is admissible: Exception 1: the contract is an oral contract or partly written. Exception 2: parties may have entered into a collateral contract, or are establishing an estoppel, with rectification, condition precedent, the true consideration, ACL, implied terms. There are also exceptions to the parol evidence rule in construing a contract. The first exception

1813-487: The parties ultimately decided to leave them out of the contract. In other words, one may not use evidence made prior to the written contract to contradict the writing. The rule applies to parol evidence, as well as other extrinsic evidence (such as written correspondence that does not form a separate contract) regarding a contract. If a contract is in writing and final to at least one term (integrated), parol or extrinsic evidence will generally be excluded. However, there are

1862-469: The policy at the time of delivery, as well as those written afterward as policy riders and endorsements ... with both parties' consent, are part of the written policy". The textbook also states that the policy must refer to all papers which are part of the policy. Oral agreements are subject to the parol evidence rule , and may not be considered part of the policy if the contract appears to be whole. Advertising materials and circulars are typically not part of

1911-489: The policy were covered; hence, those policies are now described as "individual" or "schedule" policies. This system of "named perils" or "specific perils" coverage proved to be unsustainable in the context of the Second Industrial Revolution , in that a typical large conglomerate might have dozens of types of risks to insure against. For example, in 1926, an insurance industry spokesman noted that

1960-417: The premium, the insurer promises to pay for loss caused by perils covered under the policy language. Insurance contracts are designed to meet specific needs and thus have many features not found in many other types of contracts. Since insurance policies are standard forms, they feature boilerplate language which is similar across a wide variety of different types of insurance policies. The insurance policy

2009-451: The same policy forms, rather than different policies from different insurers. In recent years, however, insurers have increasingly modified the standard forms in company-specific ways or declined to adopt changes to standard forms. For example, a review of home insurance policies found substantial differences in various provisions. In some areas such as directors and officers liability insurance and personal umbrella insurance there

Independent insurance agent - Misplaced Pages Continue

2058-424: The specific terms of a contract and precluding parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from

2107-427: The standard form, the insured can sometimes pay an additional premium for an endorsement to the policy that overrides the exclusion. Insurers have been criticized in some quarters for the development of complex policies with layers of interactions between coverage clauses, conditions, exclusions, and exceptions to exclusions. In a case interpreting one ancestor of the modern "products-completed operations hazard" clause,

2156-630: The states in which they sell insurance and financial products. There are a number of major trade organizations that support the interests and needs of the independent insurance agent, including Agents For Change , The National Organization of Life and Health Agents (NOLHA), the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (The Big "I"), and the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA). Independent agents are independent contractors for

2205-470: The terms available are wholly ambiguous. The policy is to prevent lying, to protect against doubtful veracity, to enable parties to rely dearly on written contracts, and for judicial efficiency. In most jurisdictions there are numerous exceptions to this rule, and in those jurisdictions, extrinsic evidence may be admitted for various purposes. This is called the Admission Rule. It favors liberalizing

2254-439: The testimony ($ 800) would directly contradict the written contract's terms ($ 1,000). The precise extent of the rule varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As a preliminary or threshold issue, the court may first determine if the agreement was in fact totally reduced to a written document or (in US terminology) fully "integrated". In the case of State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd McHugh J held that

2303-420: The time of the insured's death is uncertain) or as to if it will happen at all (e.g. in a fire insurance policy, whether or not a fire will occur at all). Insurance contracts were traditionally written on the basis of every single type of risk (where risks were defined extremely narrowly), and a separate premium was calculated and charged for each. Only those individual risks expressly described or "scheduled" in

2352-409: The words contained in the document. However, evidence to prove the meaning of the words, expressions, sentences and terms that constitute the contract, is admissible from the outset irrespective of whether there is any uncertainty or ambiguity in the text – as long as the evidence concerned points to a meaning which the text can reasonably have and the evidence is relevant to prove the common intention of

2401-402: The writing is excluded under the parol evidence rule. However, for a partial integration, terms that supplement the writing are admissible. To put it mildly, this can be an extremely subtle (and subjective) distinction. To put it simply, (1) If the parties intend a complete integration of the contract terms, no parol evidence within the scope of agreement is permitted. (2) If the parties intended

#880119