Opinion ID: 487784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: CFE's Status as an Agent

Text: 29 The district court found that CFE was not Forum's agent under Mississippi law, relying on the facts that CFE had no agency agreement with Forum and that CFE dealt only with Stuart Smith East, the insurance wholesaler, and never with Forum directly. We reverse this finding because the evidence--especially the trial testimony of Bill Mathison--establishes that CFE was Forum's agent under Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 83-17-1. 30 Section 83-17-1 is written in the broadest terms; it creates agency relationships where they would not exist at common law. At trial, Mathison testified that he gave Hinds County a blank application form for Forum Insurance and then sent the completed form to Stuart Smith East for a quotation. Clearly, CFE took or transmitted the application to Forum via Stuart Smith East. Mathison explained at trial that insurance companies such as Forum study applications to decide whether to provide insurance, and, if so, how much to charge for coverage. Forum reviewed Hinds County's application and intended to profit by selling insurance to the County. CFE also relayed the quotation from Stuart Smith East to the County, thus performing an act or thing in the making of the contract. 31 The district court found that CFE advised the County and was the County's agent. We do not dispute that finding, but CFE also acted on behalf of or for Forum and was Forum's agent under Sec. 83-17-1. Thus, Hinds County or Richardson could satisfy the notice requirement by giving notice to either CFE or Forum. 32 We now turn to analyze Richardson's and Hinds County's claims. 33