Insurance Certificates – Use of Additional Remarks Schedule

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog post on the legality of agents issuing opinion letters about the coverages provided by their insured’s insurance policies.  The next week, I received an email from a participant in the Free Legal Service Program that I run for the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia asking me to take a look at the language on an Additional Remarks Schedule that another agency had been routinely adding to the certificates of insurance it issued.  That schedule contained language that purported to revise the “cancellation clause” of ACORD form 25.  It stated that the agency that issued that document would “provide a 30 day notice of cancellation to the certificate holder” if any of the policies described on the ACORD form 25 were “cancelled prior to the expiration dates thereof but only as required by written contract.”

The addition of the above language to an ACORD form 25 is bad for the agency in question on two levels.  First, it provides a basis for the certificate holder to sue the agency if it does not do what it states it will do.  That could very well happen if there is a cancellation for non-payment of premium or the premium has been financed or the agency fails to effectively monitor the cancellation notices it receives.  Depending on the situation, the damages for a violation of this self-imposed duty could be significant.

The agency may be counting on the condition added at the end, “but only as required by written contract’, to limit its exposure.  However, it is unclear what “written contract” is being referred to.  If the reference is to the policy of insurance described on the ACORD form 25, it is entirely possible that what is in that policy of insurance is not consistent with the rest of the language on the Additional Remarks Schedule.  That would expose the agency to disciplinary action by the Insurance Commissioner’s Office, as the insurance certificate statute and the regulations adopted by that Office prohibit the preparation or issuance of a certificate of insurance “that contains any false or misleading information.”  If the reference is to another separate contract between the agency and the certificate holder, that would be a violation of the prohibition on making reference in an insurance certificate to any contract other than the contract of insurance identified in the certificate.

The attempt to revise the “cancellation clause” of the ACORD form 25 also runs afoul of the section of the statute that states, “A certificate holder shall have a legal right to notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or any material change, or any similar notice concerning a policy of insurance only if the person is named within the policy or any endorsement and the policy or endorsement requires notice to be provided. The terms and conditions of the notice, including the required timing of the notice, are governed by the policy of insurance and cannot be altered by a certificate of insurance.”  By attempting to specify what notice of cancellation will be provided regardless of what the insurance policy in question states, the agency has violated this statutory requirement and put “false or misleading information” on the certificate.

Finally, the addition of the language in question may also result in the certificate of insurance being rendered useless, as the statute states any certificate of insurance “prepared, issued, or requested in violation of this Code section shall be null and void and of no force and effect.”  Such an outcome would provide another basis for the certificate holder, as well as the insured, to sue the agency.

I realize the competitive pressure to do what a prospective certificate holder wants done is great. However, the risk assumed by the agency and the agent involved in the issuance of the above Additional Remarks Schedule is greater.  They may lose a customer if they don’t issue such a document, but they would be exposed to potentially significant liability and may find their licenses suspended or revoked if they do.

 

Brokerage Fees – Revisited

A recent Bulletin from the Insurance Commissioner’s Office has caused me to reconsider a blog post from almost five years ago.  In the Bulletin, the Insurance Commissioner reminded brokers who handle excess and surplus lines policies that they cannot collect sums for those policies in excess of the “premiums and charges for insurance specified by the insurer in the insurance policy.”  This prohibition is found in the Unfair Trade Practices section of the Georgia Insurance Code.  That section contains a specific reference to excess and surplus lines policies and states “the premiums and charges for insurance. . . shall not be in excess of or less than those specified in the policy.”

In my previous blog post, I concluded that a broker who had no contact with the insured and was acting purely as an intermediary between the insurance company and another insurance agency or agent could charge whatever they wanted for their services.  That conclusion is now open to question if such a broker’s services are considered to be part of the process of obtaining insurance coverage, and thus, covered by the phrase “premiums and charges for insurance” found in the above code section.

That clearly appears to be the Insurance Commissioner’s conclusion with respect to the services performed by excess and surplus lines brokers.   According to the above Bulletin, they can only receive whatever compensation is included within the “premium” or other “charge” specified in a surplus lines insurance policy.  In another section of Georgia’s Insurance Code, “premium” is defined broadly to include “any assessment or any membership, policy, survey, inspection, service, or similar fee or charge in consideration for an insurance contract.”  Such fees or charges for the broker’s services are routinely included in the amount charged by the insurer for a surplus lines policy.

However, in other types of policies such additional fees are not usually included as part of the “premium” that is to be paid for them.  If the Insurance Commissioner believes that the services provided by a broker who has no contact with the insured are part of the process of obtaining any type of insurance coverage, not just excess and surplus lines coverage, then such a broker cannot charge a fee for their services, except to the extent such a charge is included in the “premium” specified for the insurance coverage in question.  In the absence of anything about such a charge in the stated “premium”, the broker would be limited to sharing in the commissions payable for such coverage as compensation for their services.

Until there is clarification on this point from the Insurance Commissioner’s Office, to be safe, a person acting as a broker for any insurance coverage should not charge a separate fee for their services, unless provided for in the stated “premium” for the policy in question.  They should just receive a share of the commission paid for that policy.

Insurance Certificates and Opinion Letters

My last post about insurance certificates was almost two years ago.  At that time, the consensus seemed to be that issues regarding them were declining as all the interested parties became more familiar with Georgia’s law and regulations.  However, I learned from a recent participant in the Free Legal Service program that I run for members of the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia that six years after they were enacted some people have still not gotten the message.

The agent contacted me about requests that he received “all the time” to provide a letter stating that his agency’s customer “has or can provide the required types and amounts of insurance coverage” specified in a contract to which the customer either was already or would become a party.  The agent was concerned that providing such a letter called for an opinion outside of the scope of his knowledge or duties and thus, could create a potential E&O exposure.  He was correct to be concerned about the potential liability exposure he would create by providing such a letter.  It could be the basis for a claim by the entity to which it was sent if what was said in the letter was not completely accurate.

Avoiding such a potential liability exposure is one reason not to send such a letter, but an even better reason is that it would be illegal to do so and could subject the agent to disciplinary action by the Insurance Commissioner’s Office.   O.C.G.A. Section 34-24-19.1, specifically prohibits anyone from preparing, issuing, or requesting “either in addition to or in lieu of a certificate of insurance, an opinion letter or other document or correspondence that is inconsistent with this Code section.” That law goes on to state that “No certificate of insurance shall contain references to contracts, including construction or service contracts, other than the referenced contract of insurance.”

This prohibition was clarified in the regulations subsequently issued by the Insurance Commissioner’s Office.  Those regulations prohibit the reference in an insurance certificate “to any language or contents in the construction or service contracts.” The only thing that can be referred to in the insurance certificate is “a reference or contract number from the construction or service contract for identification purposes only.” The regulations also flatly state that “Neither an insurer nor a producer shall be required to issue an opinion letter or other document in addition to or in lieu of a certificate of insurance.” Instead, “Insurers and producers may provide the certificate holder with the certificate and an actual copy of the policy, insurance binder or relevant policy provision to demonstrate contractual compliance.”

If an agent can’t refer to contracts other than contracts of insurance in an insurance certificate, then as the regulations make clear, an agent can’t refer to other contracts in an opinion letter or other document that is requested by the certificate holder or anyone else.  If the person requesting such a letter insists on it being provided, the agent should point out to that person that the above law prohibits requesting such a letter or other document, as well as providing it, and that a fine of up to $5,000 can be imposed for its violation.

Is An Agency Required To Obtain A License When Its Agent Must Obtain a Non-Resident License?

My last blog post dealt with the question of when an insurance agent must obtain a non-resident license if they are placing insurance coverage for a risk located in another state.  This post will explore the related question of whether the agent’s insurance agency must also obtain a license from the insurance department of the other state.  As with the first post, it will be limited to the laws of the states adjacent to Georgia.  It will also discuss when an agency must obtain a certificate of authority from the business entity regulator of those states.

With one exception, all the states adjacent to Georgia require a business entity that sells, solicits, or negotiates insurance within their state to obtain a license.  The exception is Tennessee, whose law only states that such an entity may obtain a license as an insurance producer.  Unfortunately, unlike individual insurance producers, the law of all these states does not contain any reference to licenses for non-resident business entities.  That can lead to two possible approaches by the insurance departments in those states.  First, the literal interpretation would be that any business entity no matter where its principal offices are located must obtain a license if it sells insurance coverage for a risk located in that state.  On the other hand, the lack of any reference to licenses for non-resident business entities could be interpreted to mean those entities do not have to obtain a license, since the law does not mention them as it does with individual agents.

If you don’t want to expend the time and effort to contact the insurance department in each state to find out how they interpret their state’s law on this question, the safest course of action would be to obtain an agency license in any state where one or more of the agency’s producers have had to obtain a non-resident agent’s license.  If an agent doesn’t have to obtain such a license, it would make no sense for his or her agency to have to obtain one.  But a good argument can be made that if an agent has to obtain a non-resident license, then his or her agency should obtain one, as well, since the agent is a representative of their agency.

A separate, but related question, is whether an agency must obtain a certificate of authority to transact business in a state if it sells an insurance coverage for a risk located in that state.  Such certificates are obtained from the government agency that regulates all business entities in a state, not the state’s insurance department.  This is a very gray area and each state will have it own interpretation of when such a certificate must be obtained.  However, with one exception, all the states adjacent to Georgia have statutes that specifically exempt from the certificate requirement a business entity that sells its products or services in the state through independent contractors or that solicits or obtains orders for goods or services in the state if those orders must be accepted by an entity located outside the state before they become a binding contract.  The exception here is Alabama, which requires any legal entity that would have to obtain a certificate from its Secretary of State if it were created in Alabama to obtain such a certificate.

A good argument can be made that an insurance policy or bond fits within the exemption for orders solicited or obtained that require acceptance outside the state to become binding contracts.  An insurance application must be accepted by the insurance company before a policy or bond will be issued.  As long as the person making the decision to accept the application is not located in the state where the risk to be covered is found, there is no need to obtain a certificate of authority from that state’s business entity regulatory agency.

When Are You Required to Obtain a Non-Resident License?

Unlike most summers, this one has been very busy for my law practice.  I have been involved in the sale of three of my insurance agency clients in the past couple of months, which is one reason I haven’t been as diligent as I should have in making blog posts.  This post concerns an issue that has arisen in each of those sale transactions and about which I sometimes get a question in the Free Legal Service Program I operate for the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia.  When are you required, as a Georgia resident insurance agent, to get a non-resident agent’s license?  I will address  the related question, are you also required to obtain a license and/or certificate of authority for your agency at the same time in my next post.

Both the above questions are important issues in the context of the sale of an insurance agency, because the buyer will routinely want the selling agency to represent and warrant that it has obtained all the licenses and other governmental approvals required to conduct its business activities.  If those activities involve the issuance of insurance policies covering risks located in other states, which is often the case, the question arises do you, as the agent, need to obtain a non-resident license from the other state’s insurance department, and if you do, what about your agency.  The failure to obtain such a license or licenses when required will not only have a negative impact on the sale of an insurance agency. It can create significant problems for the individual agent and agency with the insurance departments in both their home state and the other state involved.

In late October 2000, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners proposed a model act for the licensing of insurance agents.  This act has largely been adopted by Georgia and the states surrounding it, with one exception noted below.  Under it, the solicitation, sale, or negotiation of insurance coverage by a person in a state is illegal unless that person has the appropriate license for the type of coverage in question, which license has been issued by the insurance department of that state.  The model act contains several exceptions to this requirement.  Unfortunately, only one of them is relevant for the purpose of this post.  It exempts from the license requirement a non-resident insurance agent who sells a commercial lines policy that covers risks located in the state and in other states, as long as the agent is properly licensed by the state in which the insured’s principal place of business is located and the policy covers risks located in that state.

The above exemption is a relatively narrow one, and it is not recognized by Florida.  In Florida, the sale of insurance coverage for any risk located there requires a license that has been issued by its insurance department.  The law of the other surrounding states, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina, will not permit the sale of an insurance policy that covers a Georgia insured’s out of state vacation home or any other personal lines risk located out of state without a license issued by their state’s insurance department.  The same thing is true for any commercial lines risks of a Georgia insured that do not fit within the above exemption.

Fortunately, it is not difficult to obtain a non-resident agent’s license in the states that surround Georgia.  All those states permit the issuance of a non-resident license for any type of insurance for which the non-resident is properly licensed in their home state upon the submission of the required paperwork and license fee, as long as the agent’s home state grants the same privilege to agents who are licensed in the other state, which Georgia does.  When the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act is fully implemented this process will be even easier.  That Act was passed in early 2015 and set a two year time frame for full implementation.  Unfortunately, it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle of the current political activity in Washington, so its anyone’s guess when it will be fully implemented.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage – Traps for the Unwary

In May of this year, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued two decisions involving uninsured motorist coverage that all agents should be aware of, as both of them create potential E&O exposure.  In the first case, the Court of Appeals held that the insureds had uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of their liability coverage, not the statutory minimum of $25,000, even though the declarations page for their policy stated that was the amount of uninsured motorist coverage.  Under a law that took effect in 2002, an insured who did not affirmatively reject uninsured motorist coverage had such coverage for the same amount as their liability coverage, unless the insured affirmatively elected a lesser amount of coverage.

In this case, the insureds had previously rejected uninsured motorist coverage for a policy that had been continuously renewed since 1986.  However, in 2003, the insureds changed their minds and requested that uninsured motorist coverage be added to their policy.  Unfortunately, for the insurance company, it was not able to produce any documentation of that request, as it had been made over the telephone or possibly, the internet.  Since the law required the insurance company to prove that the insureds had affirmatively elected an amount of uninsured motorist coverage less than their liability limit, the absence of any such documentation proved to be fatal to its case.  The fact that the declarations page for the policy had continuously shown a limit of $25,000 for such coverage from the time it was requested in 2003 until the loss event nine years later was not sufficient proof of an affirmative election by the insureds in the opinion of the court.

A similar lack of documentation also proved to be fatal to the insurance company in the second opinion issued by the Court of Appeals.  In that case, the Court held that the uninsured motorist coverage under the insureds’ umbrella insurance policy had not been properly cancelled.  The major issued decided by the Court was that the cancellation and non-renewal requirements imposed by O.C.G.A. Section 33-24-45 on personal lines motor vehicle insurance policies also applied to umbrella policies that include such coverage.  Thus, those portions of umbrella policies can only be cancelled or non-renewed for the reasons and in the manner specified by that statute.

O.C.G.A. Section 33-24-45 requires that a notice of cancellation or non-renewal be delivered to the insured either in person or by first class mail that is evidenced by a receipt provided by the U.S. Postal Service or such other proof of mailing as would be accepted by the Postal Service.  In this case, the insurance company claimed it had sent the insureds a notice of cancellation of the uninsured motorist provision of their umbrella policy two years before the loss event.  As in the previous case, the declarations pages for the policy issued during that two year period showed their was no uninsured motorist coverage under it.  And like the previous case, the Court held that was not sufficient to overcome the insureds’ denial that they had received any notice of cancellation from the insurance company.  Since the company could not produce a receipt issued by or acceptable to the U.S. Postal Service for the mailing of that notice, the uninsured motorist coverage was still in effect at the time of the loss event.

The lesson of the above two cases for insurance agents is clear.  It is essential in dealing with uninsured motorist coverages that the letter of the applicable law be followed, as the courts will not make exceptions based on the duty of an insured to read their policies.  An agent who does not properly document everything that is done with respect to such coverages is leaving himself or herself open for an E&O claim.

 

Raffles – Can They Be Used to Encourage Referrals? (Updated)

A recent caller to the Free Legal Service program that I run for the members of the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia asked the above question.  His agency was thinking about running a promotion that gave a raffle ticket for each referral made to the agency during a specified period of time.  The winner would receive a prize having a value of well over $100.00.  With my previous posts on this subject, I thought I had thoroughly covered all aspects of it.  However, I failed to take into consideration the creative ability of independent insurance agents when it comes to thinking of ways to generate more business for their agencies.

The short answer to the above question is YES, if certain requirements are followed.  Those requirements are found in the Georgia Insurance Code and the Georgia Criminal Code.  First, as my regular readers are no doubt well aware, the Georgia Insurance Code prohibits the sharing of commissions with any person or entity that is not properly licensed by the Georgia Insurance Commissioner’s Office.  This means that any fee or other consideration given in exchange for a referral cannot be conditioned on the referral resulting in the sale of an insurance policy or related product.  Under a change to the Insurance Code that took effect on July 1, 2016, agents and agencies are also prohibited from giving “prizes, goods, wares, store gift cards, gift certificates, sporting event tickets, or merchandise” having a value of more than $100 to any customer or potential customer in any one calendar year.

Thus, under the Insurance Code, a raffle can be used to encourage people to make referrals to an insurance agency, as long as the referral does not have to result in the sale of an insurance policy or related product and if the raffle is limited to customers or potential customers of the agency, the value of the prize cannot exceed $100.00.

What does the Georgia Criminal Code have to do with the above question?  Under that Code, a raffle is considered to be a form of gambling, like the Georgia Lottery, and is prohibited with certain exceptions.  The one exception that is relevant to the type of raffle proposed by the caller to the Free Legal Service Program requires that the raffle be conducted as an “advertising and promotional undertaking in good faith solely for the purpose of advertising the goods, ware, and merchandise” of the business in question.  In addition, the raffle cannot require its participants (i) to “pay any tangible consideration” to enter it, (ii) to purchase “anything of value” from the business, or (iii) to “be present or be asked to participate in” any type of sales or other presentation, and (iv) the prize awarded must be something other than cash and cannot be awarded based on the playing of a game on a computer or mechanical or electronic device at a place of business in Georgia (this last requirement was omitted from the original post).

The type of raffle proposed by the caller to the Free Legal Service Program satisfies the requirements of the Georgia Criminal Code because the only thing a person had to do to be eligible to participate in the raffle was supply the name and contact information of a potential customer for the agency’s products and services, which were made known to the participant, and the prize was not cash.  Since there was no requirement that the referral made result in a sale by the agency and it was not limited to customers or potential customers of the agency, the requirements of the Georgia Insurance Code were also met.

 

Recording Customer Telephone Calls – A Good Idea But Is It Legal?

In a recent post on his blog, Steve Anderson recommended that insurance agents take advantage of the new telecommunications technology that makes it relatively easy to record all incoming and outgoing telephone calls.   He suggested that making such recordings could become the primary means by which an agency documents its contact with its customers and potentially, its insurance companies.  This would save time by eliminating the need to type information about such calls into the agency management system.  There are software products that will integrate recorded telephone calls with those systems and associate the recordings with the appropriate customer and policy.  If you still want to have the security of an electronic “paper trail”, there are many transcription services available that can create such a trail much faster than your office staff.

Please see his blog post for Mr. Anderson’s thoughts about other advantages to the recording by an agency of its telephone calls with its customers and the steps an agency should take before implementing such a procedure.  However, one very  important aspect of telephone call recording was initially overlooked by Mr. Anderson; its legality.  Under federal law, it is illegal to make such recordings without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.  But each state is free to impose greater consent requirements, and it is the requirements of the state in which each party to the call is located that will govern the legality of its recording with respect to that party.  In checking the laws of Georgia and the states that surround it, I found that all but one of them require the consent of only one party to the recording of a telephone call.  Florida was the only state that imposed a greater consent requirement.  Under its law, all the parties to a telephone call must consent to its recording.

If all your agency’s customers are located in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, or North Carolina, there is no need to obtain the consent of those customers to the recording of their telephone calls.   However, if the agency decides to record all such calls, to avoid any potential issues with its customers or other parties over the recording of their telephone conversations without their knowledge, it would be a good idea to include an announcement before any incoming call that it will be recorded. Such an announcement can be programmed into many of the new telephone systems to play when the call is first answered and before any of the agency staff actually speak to the caller. It should protect the agency from violating the law of Florida and any other states that require the consent of all parties to the recording of telephone calls by allowing the agency to argue that the caller’s proceeding with the telephone call after hearing the announcement amounted to its consent to the recording of the call. That is apparently the conclusion drawn by many large companies, as such an announcement is routinely played when calls are made to their customer service centers.

If you want to be able to safely record outgoing calls, the agency staff will need to be trained to begin each such call with an announcement that it will be recorded and ask the other party if that is acceptable.  Such a procedure is advisable as the violation of the law on the recording of telephone calls is a crime, and in Georgia and most of the surrounding states, it is a felony.  Some of those states also give the other parties to such calls a right to sue for damages, if the law is violated.

What Rights Do Customers Have to Information in Agency Files?

The above question was recently asked of me by a caller to the Free Legal Service program that I run for the members of the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia.  In particular, the caller wanted to know if they could refuse to provide loss runs to a former customer whose policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premium.  This customer owed the agency money, and the caller wanted to condition delivery of the loss runs on payment of the money owed.

The short answer to the question depends on two things.  First, whether the information sought by the customer is related to a commercial or personal lines policy and second, if related to a personal lines policy, what type of information is being sought.  As you might suspect from the short answer, there is no law or regulation applicable to Georgia agents or agencies that requires them to provide a commercial lines customer with information or documents maintained by them about that customer or the policies issued to that customer.  Such information and documents belong to the agent or agency, and they can control the circumstances under which their commercial lines customers can have access to their files.  Of course, such a customer can always go to the insurance company that issued the policy in question and ask for information about it from the company.

If the customer is asking to have access to information and documents related to a personal lines policy, under Georgia law, they have a right to be given access to certain kinds of information about them that is kept in an agent or agency’s files.  This right is found in the same law that governs the giving of notices to customers about the information gathering and privacy policies of agents and agencies (click here for a post about that law).  Under it, a personal lines customer has the right to request access to “recorded personal information” about the customer in an agent or agency’s files.

The request must be made in writing and “reasonably describe” the information the customer wants to review.  If that information is “reasonably locatable and retrievable”, the agent or agency must do several things within 30 days after receiving the customer’s request.  One of those things is permit the customer to “see and copy, in person” the information requested or have a copy of that information mailed to the customer, whichever the customer wants.

The information that a personal lines customer has the right to “see and copy, in person” or obtain by mail is “any individually identifiable information gathered in connection with an insurance transaction from which judgments can be made about an individual’s character, habits, avocations, finances, occupation, general reputation, credit, health, or any other personal characteristics.”  This right even extends to persons who only submitted an application for insurance and never obtained a policy from the agent or agency.  There is an exception for “privileged information”, which is any information the relates to a claim for insurance benefits or a civil or criminal proceeding involving the customer that was “collected in connection with or in reasonable anticipation” of such a claim or proceeding.

If the caller to the Free Legal Service Program had been asking about the claims history of a personal lines customer, the answer to the above question would have been completely different from the one I gave that caller.

 

Payment of Referral Fees – Additional Considerations

In October of last year, I wrote a post that summarized my opinion on the question of when and how an insurance agent may pay a fee to an unlicensed person for the referral of a potential customer to the agent by that person.  That post was written from the perspective of whether and when the Georgia Insurance Code would permit the payment of such fees.  It did not take into consideration, any other laws or regulations that may be applicable to the person to whom the referral fee was to be paid.

A recent call to the Free Legal Service program that I run for the members of the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia made me think about such other laws and regulations.  The caller mentioned that an agent he knew had been told that it was illegal to pay a referral fee to a real estate agent or mortgage broker under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).   That Act prohibits both the payment and the acceptance of “any fee, kickback, or Thing of Value” in connection with “business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan.”  The criminal penalty for the violation of this prohibition is a fine of up to $10,000 and up to one year in prison, and the civil penalty is payment of three times the amount charged the borrower for the settlement service in question, plus attorney fees and other costs of litigation.  Both the payer and the recipient of a prohibited referral fee are subject to these penalties.

The RESPA prohibition on fees, kickbacks, and things of value applies only to residential mortgage loans for real property designed principally for “the occupancy of from one to four families.”  It also applies only to services that are “incident to or a part of” the settlement of such loans.  The statute refers specifically to title insurance and services performed by real estate agents or brokers as being covered by this prohibition.  Nothing is said in the statute or regulations about the provision of property and casualty or any other kind of insurance to the borrower of a covered loan.

However, if the existence of such other insurance coverage is required by the lender of a covered loan in order for the loan to be “settled”, a good argument can be made that the provision of such insurance is “incident to or a part of” the settlement of the loan.  If a charge for the cost of such insurance is included on the settlement statement for the loan, this good argument becomes a convincing argument.  For an agent who is considering paying a referral fee to real estate agents, mortgage brokers, or lenders for the names of home buyers who may need property and casualty or other insurance coverages to obtain a loan, it would be a good investment to pay an attorney for a legal opinion on whether the payment of such a fee is prohibited under RESPA.

For a referral fee arrangement with any other person, it would be a good idea to ask that person if their activities are subject to any laws or regulations that may prohibit the payment of such fees.  As the above makes clear, just because it may be legal under the Georgia Insurance Code to pay a referral fee does not mean it’s permissible under all other laws and regulations.