It may be obvious that a person was the insurer’s agent and was acting as agent — e.g., a person licensed to sell the company’s policy was engaged in selling the policy. In addition, the statutes make clear that anyone engaging in the listed activities on behalf of an insurer will be treated as agent for that insurer.
As the Texas Supreme Court stated in the 1994, opinion styled, Celtic Life Insurance Company v. Coats. the court explained under the predecessor statute, agents are defined generally, and the statute lists various acts performed in the ordinary course of providing insurance — such as soliciting insurance; transmitting an application; receiving, collecting, or transmitting a premium; and adjusting a loss. Anyone who performs these acts “shall be held to be the agent of the company for which the act is done, or the risk is taken, as far as relates to all liabilities, duties, requirements and penalties set form in the statute.
Another example is found in the 1979, Texas Supreme Court opinion styled, Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Bar Consultants, Inc. There, an agent who issued a policy and signed it on behalf of the insurer was the insurer’s agent. The insurer was vicariously liable for the agent’s misrepresentation that the policy covered property damage caused by vandalism.
A 2002, 5th Circuit opinion styled, TIG Insurance Co. v. Sedgwick James, stated that the agreement with the agent did not give authority to modify the policy. The agent was authorized to issue certificates of insurance . The certificates stated they did not modify the underlying policy. The agent did not have actual authority to extend coverage by issuing a certificate to extend coverage beyond the policy.