Krumme

Krumme v. Mercury Insurance

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 4th 924·20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1832·2004 Daily Journal DAR 13326·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9779
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2004A103046, A103742California9,560 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kay, J.

Insurance Code section 1704 requires that certain kinds of insurance may be sold only by what are known as “appointed agents”— persons for whom the insurer has filed with the Insurance Commissioner a notice of appointment formally designating the person to act on the insurer’s behalf. A trio of related insurers (which for purposes of simplicity will hereinafter be collectively referred to as Mercury) sold policies of automobile insurance within the state through “broker-agents” who are not appointed agents. Suit was instituted to stop this practice, as well as permitting the “broker-agents” to charge consumers broker fees added to the advertised price of insurance. The trial court determined that both of these practices ran afoul of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and permanently enjoined them.

The primary issue pressed by Mercury is whether its practice of employing broker-agents who are not appointed agents has been sanctioned by the Legislature and therefore enjoys a “safe harbor” from liability under the UCL. Although the issue is not free from all doubt, on balance it appears from the governing statutes, particularly section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.