If an advisor defrauds a client, and the advisor’s managing general agent (MGA) had been tipped off that the advisor had a criminal record and serious allegations of fraud levied against him yet did not act on those allegations, can that MGA be held liable for damages resulting from the advisor’s actions?
That is the focus of an ongoing lawsuit filed by two elderly brothers in Connecticut, who had been told they would earn high returns if they allowed the advisor to manage or invest their money in annuities that were supposed to be placed with two carriers.
By the time the advisor was arrested in January 2007, the advisor—currently serving a 7-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to a variety of federal fraud charges after an FBI investigation—had spent more than $1.2 million of the brothers’ money on exotic cars, fine jewelry, Las Vegas gambling junkets and exotic dancers.
The brothers allege that the MGA committed unfair and deceptive business and insurance practices by, among other things, vouching for the character of the advisor despite its knowledge that the advisor had a prior criminal record for fraud.
The suit further alleges the MGA continued to act as an intermediary for the advisor even after receiving reports of his forgery, embezzlement, and pattern of lies, and failed to disclose these reports to potentially affected insurance consumers and to carriers who, based on the same information, would most likely have taken steps to terminate their relationship with the advisor.
An Appeals Court’s recent decision on the brothers’ appeal substantially broadens the potential duties of general agents under G.L. c. 93A (Massachusetts General Law chapter 93A, referring to consumer protection) to disclose to insureds, annuitants or insurance companies credible allegations of a producer’s possible fraud or embezzlement.
The Appeals Court said:
- “Given the reports it had received about [the advisor], particularly the notification, in writing, that he had stolen money from another client, [the MGA’s] inaction could fairly be deemed unfair and unethical, and a foreseeable cause of the [brothers’] injuries”
- “A fact finder could determine that [the MGA’s] failures to act in the face of likely and substantial injury to [the advisor’s] clients, as alleged, constituted violations of the broad remedial language of c. 93A.”
The Appeals Court also put forth this statement of how the MGA might have ultimately avoided this lawsuit:
- “Had [the MGA] acted in some fashion (whether by investigating or, absent an investigation, simply informing interested parties), it is foreseeable that the [brothers] would not have suffered the losses they did.”
The case raises a variety of ethical issues, which I asked Stephen R. McCarty, Chairman of the National Ethics Association, to address. Not being an attorney, McCarty said he can’t comment on the legal aspects of the case but was happy to weigh in on the ethical issues.