Insurance Law

Being appointed an agent under a financial power of attorney, or as a Court-appointed guardian, comes with a significant delegation of authority. However, it is important to know that such delegation of power is not without limits. For example, an agent can only exercise powers specifically granted under the power of attorney document. And, in the case of a guardianship, the guardian is obligated to periodically account for the Court of their efforts on behalf of the ward. And, of course, a fiduciary under either scenario cannot abuse their power or use their power unlawfully.

Recently, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that provides yet more useful guidance for fiduciaries. In United Bank v. Richard Buckingham, et al., the Court answered the following two certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland: (1) whether changing beneficiaries on a life insurance policy constitutes a conveyance under the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act; and (2) whether a guardian of property has the authority to change beneficiaries for a life insurance policy of the ward.

The Court answered the first question in the affirmative, explaining that a change in life insurance beneficiary made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is subject to the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. The court then answered the second question in the negative, noting that a guardian of property clearly does not have the authority to change the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the life of a ward, citing the provisions of Section 15-102(t) of Maryland’s Estates and Trusts Article. Instead, the Court found that a fiduciary may only change the beneficiary of a life insurance policy following application to and approval of a court of equity.

Continue reading →

Simply put, an insurance agent has no general duty to advise its insureds, with regard to essentially anything after the issuance of the policy. In Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions, the basis for not holding agents to a standard of care stems from a fear that to do so would create a situation where the tort floodgates would open to allow claims against brokers whenever an incident surrounding the policy occurs. While the question of duty can become more complex when the agent is acting on behalf of the insured, as opposed to the insurance company, the question is not affected in a relevant way.

Regardless of the status of the agent, when viewed exclusively in the insurance context, once the policy is issued, the insured is responsible for noticing any problems with the policy and bringing them to the attention of the agent immediately. With regard to administration of the policy following issuance, the basis for not requiring a duty of care stems from a belief that such would require an agent to continuously monitor a clients assets and adjust coverage accordingly. Since agents are generally in a position where they must rely on the information given to them by the insured, imposing a duty of care is unreasonable.
Continue reading →

Articles Posted in Insurance Law

Understanding The Limits of Your Fiduciary Powers – United Bank v. Buckingham

Examination of the Duty of Insurance Agents After the Sale