Havensure, LLC, an insurance broker, approached York International to determine whether it could provide insurance for York at a better rate. At the time, York was obtaining its group insurance from Prudential Insurance Co. through Universal Life Resources (ULR), another insurance broker. York allowed Havensure to study its policies. Havensure discovered that the premium Prudential charged included a hidden broker’s fee that it used to pay ULR. When Havensure claimed that it could get the insurance at a lower price, York agreed that Havensure could send requests for proposals to various insurance companies. To keep York’s business, Prudential offered to match the lowest rate quoted. Prudential also informed York that it must continue to buy the policy through ULR, not through Havensure. York agreed. Havensure then sued Prudential for wrongful interference with a business relationship (a tort that will be discussed in Chapter 6). The trial court held for Prudential. Havensure appealed. The appeals court held that although Prudential had violated its own code of ethics by having a hidden fee for a broker, and might have violated New York insurance law, Havensure still had no case. Why would a court find that a firm that violated its own rules, and might have violated the law, had no obligation for the loss it might have imposed on another firm trying to compete for business? Does this ruling make sense? Why or why not? [Havensure, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 595 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2010)]

$1.99

3

0

  183




Buyer's Ratings
Social connections


Created

Compatibility

Files Included

November 27, 2012

MS word

doc



LiveZilla Live Help