Apparent Authority

2018 – LC – Ciofoletti v. Securian Fin. Grp. — [BonkNote]
- No. 0:18-cv-03025-JNE-ECW (D. Minn.) – filed in federal court in St. Paul, Minnesota
- Doc 138 – Transcript – June 23, 2020
  - p27 – It’s Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc. It’s cited in the notes to this Jury Instruction, 364 N.W.2d 387 at 391, Minnesota Supreme Court 1985.
  - And the Court says, well, apparent authority is usually based on some affirmative action on the part of the principal.
  - ⇒ Authority may be found when the agent has regularly exercised some power not expressly given to it and the principal knowing of the practice tacitly sanctions its continuance.
    - And that’s where we’re at here.

2024 0209 – FSRA – [2023-015] – Comments – Consultation for Proposed Guidance on Life Insurance Agent & MGA Licensing Suitability — [BonkNote]
- CLHIA – Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association – Lyne Duhaime – [FSRA-2023-015] – 2024 0223 – 10p
  - Reliance on Agency Law falls short:
    - In practical terms, the vast majority of MGAs operate independently and support the distribution of insurance products of a variety of insurers.
    - Very few insurance distribution participants have a model that approximates one in which apparent authority could possibly be found.
    - FSRA’s reliance on agency law to deem a principal-agent relationship to exist “in certain circumstances” is a response suited to the distribution model contemplated by the Insurance Act of the 1990s, when insurers almost exclusively sold products through a career salesforce.
    - If FSRA is looking for greater authority to regulate MGAs, which life insurers support, the proper forum to acquire that authority is in legislation.