Court Opinion

ID: 9684249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:51:55.294879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.310652
License: Public Domain

White, C.J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that the authorized employment of a subagent by a general agent does not subject the principal to contractual liability to the subagent, overruling Equitable Life Assurance Co. v. Brobst, 18 Neb. 526, 26 N.W. 204 (1886). Brobst held that “the acts of a general agent with reference to the subject of the agency will bind his principal.” Id. at 528, 26 N.W. at 204. Since I do not believe that Brobst should be so lightly overruled, I respectfully dissent.
Kemper’s agreement with PDS provided PDS with the express authority to hire subagents to sell insurance policies for Kemper. Although Kemper has made payments to PDS on commissions due to the subagents, it has not ensured that the subagents receive these commissions from its general agent. Kemper is allowed to reap the benefits of the sales by these subagents without ensuring that these subagents are paid. In sum, Kemper gave its general agent express permission to enter contracts in pursuit of Kemper business opportunities and, therefore, should be held liable for its general agent’s breaches of these contracts.
Since the majority’s holding provides an insurance company contractual immunity from contracts which directly benefit the company by merely acting through a general agent, I respectfully dissent.
Caporale and Fahrnbruch, JL, join in this dissent.