Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog
Insurance agents who do not sell the insurance policy that was requested by their customer can be held liable for selling the wrong policy or misrepresenting the policy. This is illustrated in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, opinion styled, Steve and Ellen Malone v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and Garrison & Associates.
Negligent procurement of an insurance policy is recognized as a legally cognizable claim against an insurance agent. The Texas Supreme Court held that an insurance agent “owes a duty to a client to use reasonable diligence in attempting to place the requested insurance and to inform the client promptly if unable to do so.” In this case the Malones allege they informed the Agent of Steve Malone’s specific cancer diagnosis and his ongoing care and treatment. More explicitly, the Malones allege they made known to that their health insurance policy under Humana, which was being discontinued covered Steve Malone’s ongoing cancer treatments and they “specifically requested” the insurance Agent furnish them with a health insurance policy that would “provide the same or better coverage as Humana, especially as it relates to Steve Malone’s cancer treatments.” The insurance Agent allegedly agreed to procure the specific coverage requested and, thereafter, provided the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) Policy. The Agent allegedly told Malones the BCBS Policy would provide the requested insurance coverage, specifically including Steve Malone’s ongoing cancer treatments and the Rituxan therapy. The Agent also allegedly represented to Malones that “the BCBS Policy was as good as or better than the Humana plan, and would provide the same or better coverage.” The Malones then enrolled in the BCBS Policy. However, shortly thereafter, the Malones’ claim submitted for Steve Malone’s ongoing Rituxan therapy “was denied on the basis that the BCBS Policy does not provide coverage for the needed medical care.” The repeated denial of coverage for this cancer treatment claim spanned six months. The Malones allege they were irreparably harmed because Steve Malone was taken out of the Rituxan therapy during this time period and prevented from re-entering, and any benefits he had received from it were nullified.
The Court stated this pleading is consistent with causes of action related to the Texas Insurance Code, Section 541.051 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.