‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be regarded as incidental. It is well established that the right to be paid commission does not fall under that head and I do not think that Temple can derive any support from the use of the word ‘retain’ in this case, which simply recognises that the premium is expected to pass through its hands. Temple’s authority to receive payment of commission on behalf of QBE was not, on the true construction of the binder, conferred in order to provide security for the payment of its commission. Under an agreement of this kind the agent is a fiduciary who must act in the interests of his principal, both in relation to the writing of insurance contracts and in administering the business arising out of them.’
Judges:
Rix, Moore-Baick LJJ, Bennett J
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 453, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 544, [2009] 1 CLC 553
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd ComC 23-Apr-2008
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Bailey and Another v Angove’s Pty Ltd SC 27-Jul-2016
The defendant had agreed to act as the claimant’s agent and distributor of the claimant’s wines in the UK. It acted both as agent and also bought wines on its own account. When the defendant went into litigation the parties disputed the right of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Agency
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.330953